Stop-smoking figures down year on year

Stop-smoking figures down year on year

Stop-smoking figures down year on year

First published in News by

Fewer smokers across Sussex are signing up to kick the habit.

Latest figures show 14,866 people in the county pledged to give up cigarettes between April 2013 and the end of March compared to 17,753 the year before.

Research has shown that as more and more people give up over the years, those who remain are a hard core of smokers who find it the most difficult to stop or who do not wish to.

Focus is expected to shift over the coming years towards preventing people starting in the first place although stop smoking services will still continue.

The Health and Social Care Information Centre figures show 3,284 people signed up for an NHS stop smoking course in Brighton and Hove last year compared to 3,529 in the previous year.

However the city council’s public health team still managed to hit its target of helping 2,000 of these give up.

Out of 5,370 people who signed up in East Sussex, 2,427 gave up and in West Sussex, 3,031 people out of the 6,212 who joined an NHS course were successful.

Brighton and Hove council’s health development specialist Susan Venables said the city was bucking the national trend and continuing to achieve its target of 2,000 smoking quitters a year.

She said: “This has been the case in almost every year over the last decade. “The number of people who set a quit date to stop smoking has indeed fallen in Brighton and Hove – by 3% over the last year – however, thanks to some hard work from smoking cessation advisers in primary care and the community the numbers of quitters has not reduced.

“The focus of tobacco control services is likely to change over the coming years with more emphasis on stopping people from starting smoking.

“Nevertheless, stop smoking clinics remain available in a number of settings and locations including GP surgeries, pharmacies and in the community.

“Workplace clinics are also available providing one to one and group sessions.

“Pregnant women who want to quit smoking can also access the service through GP and antenatal services.”

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:21pm Thu 28 Aug 14

NathanAdler says...

Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it.

Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers.

Let them kill themselves. Who cares?
Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it. Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers. Let them kill themselves. Who cares? NathanAdler
  • Score: -8

2:49pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

NathanAdler wrote:
Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it.

Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers.

Let them kill themselves. Who cares?
I agree with everything you wrote, but "If I do not have to inhale their smoke" is difficult to enforce.

We non-smokers still have to put up with the smell and healthy risk whilst going about our business.

To your list, I would add "looking pathetic whilst trying to look cool" and " making a mess everywhere they go"
[quote][p][bold]NathanAdler[/bold] wrote: Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it. Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers. Let them kill themselves. Who cares?[/p][/quote]I agree with everything you wrote, but "If I do not have to inhale their smoke" is difficult to enforce. We non-smokers still have to put up with the smell and healthy risk whilst going about our business. To your list, I would add "looking pathetic whilst trying to look cool" and " making a mess everywhere they go" ok,jared
  • Score: -16

2:50pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Ennuid says...

NathanAdler wrote:
Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it.

Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers.

Let them kill themselves. Who cares?
I do like (in the sense of the words, nothing else) yellow monkey-pee fingers, very evocative. But it has bought out the pedant in me. Do you mean smokers fingers are like the wee of yellow monkeys (a Japanese rock band google tells me), and if so how do you know? Or do you mean their fingers are like the yellow wee of a monkey? And if so, why monkeys, as opposed to say donkeys or goats or cats. Is it especially yellow?
[quote][p][bold]NathanAdler[/bold] wrote: Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it. Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers. Let them kill themselves. Who cares?[/p][/quote]I do like (in the sense of the words, nothing else) yellow monkey-pee fingers, very evocative. But it has bought out the pedant in me. Do you mean smokers fingers are like the wee of yellow monkeys (a Japanese rock band google tells me), and if so how do you know? Or do you mean their fingers are like the yellow wee of a monkey? And if so, why monkeys, as opposed to say donkeys or goats or cats. Is it especially yellow? Ennuid
  • Score: -6

2:54pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Ennuid wrote:
NathanAdler wrote:
Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it.

Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers.

Let them kill themselves. Who cares?
I do like (in the sense of the words, nothing else) yellow monkey-pee fingers, very evocative. But it has bought out the pedant in me. Do you mean smokers fingers are like the wee of yellow monkeys (a Japanese rock band google tells me), and if so how do you know? Or do you mean their fingers are like the yellow wee of a monkey? And if so, why monkeys, as opposed to say donkeys or goats or cats. Is it especially yellow?
Have you ever contributed to a debate?
[quote][p][bold]Ennuid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NathanAdler[/bold] wrote: Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it. Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers. Let them kill themselves. Who cares?[/p][/quote]I do like (in the sense of the words, nothing else) yellow monkey-pee fingers, very evocative. But it has bought out the pedant in me. Do you mean smokers fingers are like the wee of yellow monkeys (a Japanese rock band google tells me), and if so how do you know? Or do you mean their fingers are like the yellow wee of a monkey? And if so, why monkeys, as opposed to say donkeys or goats or cats. Is it especially yellow?[/p][/quote]Have you ever contributed to a debate? ok,jared
  • Score: -3

3:07pm Thu 28 Aug 14

qm says...

NathanAdler wrote:
Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it.

Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers.

Let them kill themselves. Who cares?
Agree with everything you say Nathan however I must confess to being exceedingly curious as to your acquaintance with "tramp's undercrackers" of which you write with great authority and gravitas?
I have elicited hitherto, from your posts in general, that you are a worldly man and am filled with admiration as to the breadth and depth of your desire for knowledge and experience.
I offer much gratitude and appreciation for your willingness to share that with us. ;)
[quote][p][bold]NathanAdler[/bold] wrote: Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it. Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers. Let them kill themselves. Who cares?[/p][/quote]Agree with everything you say Nathan however I must confess to being exceedingly curious as to your acquaintance with "tramp's undercrackers" of which you write with great authority and gravitas? I have elicited hitherto, from your posts in general, that you are a worldly man and am filled with admiration as to the breadth and depth of your desire for knowledge and experience. I offer much gratitude and appreciation for your willingness to share that with us. ;) qm
  • Score: 4

3:09pm Thu 28 Aug 14

sussexram40 says...

I guess this will be because most of those who wanted to give up have already done so. The minority of people left who still smoke probably don't want to give up.
I guess this will be because most of those who wanted to give up have already done so. The minority of people left who still smoke probably don't want to give up. sussexram40
  • Score: 10

3:18pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

qm wrote:
NathanAdler wrote:
Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it.

Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers.

Let them kill themselves. Who cares?
Agree with everything you say Nathan however I must confess to being exceedingly curious as to your acquaintance with "tramp's undercrackers" of which you write with great authority and gravitas?
I have elicited hitherto, from your posts in general, that you are a worldly man and am filled with admiration as to the breadth and depth of your desire for knowledge and experience.
I offer much gratitude and appreciation for your willingness to share that with us. ;)
I think we should be grateful to Nathan for answering that age-old question as to how badly a tramp's undercrackers smell.

Lord knows what he had to endure to make that discovery, but his selfless efforts will benefit all of society.
[quote][p][bold]qm[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NathanAdler[/bold] wrote: Whilst I absolutely hate smoking, it is their choice. If I do not have to inhale their smoke, let them get on with it. Unless they are retarded, smokers realise they smell like a tramp's undercrackers, have yellow monkey-pee fingers, rotten teeth, hacking coughs. liney faces, bad skin and will get various cancers. Let them kill themselves. Who cares?[/p][/quote]Agree with everything you say Nathan however I must confess to being exceedingly curious as to your acquaintance with "tramp's undercrackers" of which you write with great authority and gravitas? I have elicited hitherto, from your posts in general, that you are a worldly man and am filled with admiration as to the breadth and depth of your desire for knowledge and experience. I offer much gratitude and appreciation for your willingness to share that with us. ;)[/p][/quote]I think we should be grateful to Nathan for answering that age-old question as to how badly a tramp's undercrackers smell. Lord knows what he had to endure to make that discovery, but his selfless efforts will benefit all of society. ok,jared
  • Score: 6

6:26pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Minion says...

Pointless article. Smokers that successfully quit last year aren't going to quit again this year, are they? Not everyone who quits signs up to the NHS quit smoking course. Someone needs to work out percentages of total smokers that sign up, then percentage of those that succeed. If anyone actually really cares...

Setting a date to stop smoking is a bad idea. If people don't manage to quit on this date they'll assume they've failed and just keep smoking, I see people do that all the time.
It's a bit like running a marathon, it's not about coming first, it's about completion. If you fall over, get up and keep going, don't just assume you've lost and leave the race because you can't complete it 'in time', cutting down slowly and taking months to quit is better than not quitting at all. I took 6 weeks to quit, I'd have half a fag here and there, and so many people would say to me "oh nooooo! you were doing so well!", as if I'd failed by having half a cigarette in 3 days, I ignored them as I knew that it was better than smoking a pack of 20 every day like I used to.

Good luck to anyone who wants to quit, and don't let other people's opinions on how well you're doing deter you.
Pointless article. Smokers that successfully quit last year aren't going to quit again this year, are they? Not everyone who quits signs up to the NHS quit smoking course. Someone needs to work out percentages of total smokers that sign up, then percentage of those that succeed. If anyone actually really cares... Setting a date to stop smoking is a bad idea. If people don't manage to quit on this date they'll assume they've failed and just keep smoking, I see people do that all the time. It's a bit like running a marathon, it's not about coming first, it's about completion. If you fall over, get up and keep going, don't just assume you've lost and leave the race because you can't complete it 'in time', cutting down slowly and taking months to quit is better than not quitting at all. I took 6 weeks to quit, I'd have half a fag here and there, and so many people would say to me "oh nooooo! you were doing so well!", as if I'd failed by having half a cigarette in 3 days, I ignored them as I knew that it was better than smoking a pack of 20 every day like I used to. Good luck to anyone who wants to quit, and don't let other people's opinions on how well you're doing deter you. Minion
  • Score: 4

6:53pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

The largest growing number of smokers is former smokers who started back. Especially after they discovered that everything they were ever told was an outright lie. They have never proven one claim against direct smoking NOT ONE!


JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.


http://cot.food.gov.
uk/pdfs/cotstatement
tobacco0409


"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
The largest growing number of smokers is former smokers who started back. Especially after they discovered that everything they were ever told was an outright lie. They have never proven one claim against direct smoking NOT ONE! JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS" 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004. http://cot.food.gov. uk/pdfs/cotstatement tobacco0409 "5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease." In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does. The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory. harleyrider1777
  • Score: 1

6:54pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnew
s.com/_news/2013/01/
28/16741714-lungs-fr
om-pack-a-day-smoker
s-safe-for-transplan
t-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...............
............

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke: http://vitals.nbcnew s.com/_news/2013/01/ 28/16741714-lungs-fr om-pack-a-day-smoker s-safe-for-transplan t-study-finds?lite Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds. By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News. Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe. What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none. “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study............... ............ Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it! The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered: Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year. 146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY. A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose. Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh! harleyrider1777
  • Score: 0

6:59pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Minion wrote:
Pointless article. Smokers that successfully quit last year aren't going to quit again this year, are they? Not everyone who quits signs up to the NHS quit smoking course. Someone needs to work out percentages of total smokers that sign up, then percentage of those that succeed. If anyone actually really cares...

Setting a date to stop smoking is a bad idea. If people don't manage to quit on this date they'll assume they've failed and just keep smoking, I see people do that all the time.
It's a bit like running a marathon, it's not about coming first, it's about completion. If you fall over, get up and keep going, don't just assume you've lost and leave the race because you can't complete it 'in time', cutting down slowly and taking months to quit is better than not quitting at all. I took 6 weeks to quit, I'd have half a fag here and there, and so many people would say to me "oh nooooo! you were doing so well!", as if I'd failed by having half a cigarette in 3 days, I ignored them as I knew that it was better than smoking a pack of 20 every day like I used to.

Good luck to anyone who wants to quit, and don't let other people's opinions on how well you're doing deter you.
NRT Failure Rate Soars to 98.4%

New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.

PRLog (Press Release) - Apr 03, 2009 -
New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.

NRT is the Government’s recommended treatment for its smoking cessation programmes and is heavily funded by the tax-payer.

Pro-choice group Freedom2choose are alarmed at these revelations and the obvious waste of tax-payers’ funds. Colin Grainger, vice chairman of the group states, “NRT products are obviously unfit for the purpose for which they are sold. This is fraud, wrong and immoral.”

Freedom2choose have previously highlighted alternative ways to successfully quit smoking, including the Allen Carr method, with a documented success rate of 58% for those choosing to give up. The Allen Carr method even promises a money back guarantee to those that don’t successfully quit.

“More worryingly,” continues Colin Grainger “is the shock that the scientists who put the study together even work for the manufacturers of NRT. This clearly shows how the Big Pharmaceutical companies influence the outcome of studies.”

The revelations were originally made public by long-term anti-smoking campaigner Professor Michael Siegel who states “With a long-term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, one can hardly call NRT treatment an "effective" intervention. In fact, the logical conclusion from this paper is that NRT was a dismal intervention.”


Reference: NRT Failure Rate 98.4% - http://www.tobaccoan
alysis.blogspot.com/


http://www.prlog.org
/10211087-nrt-failur
e-rate-soars-to-984.
html

Friday, July 27, 2012
Pharmaceutical Nicotine and Chantix: 93% Failure Rate Reconfirmed

A study published in the European Journal of Internal Medicine indicates that pharmaceutical nicotine and Chantix (varenicline) had 93% failure rates at two inner city academic health center clinics with predominantly Medicaid patients (abstract here).

http://rodutobaccotr
uth.blogspot.com/201
2/07/pharmaceutical-
nicotine-and-chantix
-93.html
[quote][p][bold]Minion[/bold] wrote: Pointless article. Smokers that successfully quit last year aren't going to quit again this year, are they? Not everyone who quits signs up to the NHS quit smoking course. Someone needs to work out percentages of total smokers that sign up, then percentage of those that succeed. If anyone actually really cares... Setting a date to stop smoking is a bad idea. If people don't manage to quit on this date they'll assume they've failed and just keep smoking, I see people do that all the time. It's a bit like running a marathon, it's not about coming first, it's about completion. If you fall over, get up and keep going, don't just assume you've lost and leave the race because you can't complete it 'in time', cutting down slowly and taking months to quit is better than not quitting at all. I took 6 weeks to quit, I'd have half a fag here and there, and so many people would say to me "oh nooooo! you were doing so well!", as if I'd failed by having half a cigarette in 3 days, I ignored them as I knew that it was better than smoking a pack of 20 every day like I used to. Good luck to anyone who wants to quit, and don't let other people's opinions on how well you're doing deter you.[/p][/quote]NRT Failure Rate Soars to 98.4% New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%. PRLog (Press Release) - Apr 03, 2009 - New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%. NRT is the Government’s recommended treatment for its smoking cessation programmes and is heavily funded by the tax-payer. Pro-choice group Freedom2choose are alarmed at these revelations and the obvious waste of tax-payers’ funds. Colin Grainger, vice chairman of the group states, “NRT products are obviously unfit for the purpose for which they are sold. This is fraud, wrong and immoral.” Freedom2choose have previously highlighted alternative ways to successfully quit smoking, including the Allen Carr method, with a documented success rate of 58% for those choosing to give up. The Allen Carr method even promises a money back guarantee to those that don’t successfully quit. “More worryingly,” continues Colin Grainger “is the shock that the scientists who put the study together even work for the manufacturers of NRT. This clearly shows how the Big Pharmaceutical companies influence the outcome of studies.” The revelations were originally made public by long-term anti-smoking campaigner Professor Michael Siegel who states “With a long-term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, one can hardly call NRT treatment an "effective" intervention. In fact, the logical conclusion from this paper is that NRT was a dismal intervention.” Reference: NRT Failure Rate 98.4% - http://www.tobaccoan alysis.blogspot.com/ http://www.prlog.org /10211087-nrt-failur e-rate-soars-to-984. html Friday, July 27, 2012 Pharmaceutical Nicotine and Chantix: 93% Failure Rate Reconfirmed A study published in the European Journal of Internal Medicine indicates that pharmaceutical nicotine and Chantix (varenicline) had 93% failure rates at two inner city academic health center clinics with predominantly Medicaid patients (abstract here). http://rodutobaccotr uth.blogspot.com/201 2/07/pharmaceutical- nicotine-and-chantix -93.html harleyrider1777
  • Score: -3

7:00pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

http://boltonsmokers
club.wordpress.com/t
he-mctear-case-the-a
nalysis/

(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.

In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras. to ).
In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras. to
).
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation! It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’): http://boltonsmokers club.wordpress.com/t he-mctear-case-the-a nalysis/ (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in 2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages. (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right, therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused lung cancer. [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation. Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker, it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]). [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to [7.181]). harleyrider1777
  • Score: -1

7:00pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Congratualtions to everyone who ever survived a single cookout! LOL

Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests.
A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes.

Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer.

The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages.”

Even the AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY has relay for life BBQ cook-offs..........o
h the Hypocrisy of it all!
Congratualtions to everyone who ever survived a single cookout! LOL Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests. A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes. Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer. The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages.” Even the AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY has relay for life BBQ cook-offs..........o h the Hypocrisy of it all! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -1

7:01pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Clean Air Quality Law

It is hereby ordered that all things that generate chemical releases simular in nature to tobacco smoke are hereby OUTLAWED.

1. Automobiles and gas or diesel engines or any other contivance that emits chemcial releases. This savings equals to the public not being forced to inhale 100s of billions of cigarettes each day.

2. All plants are outlawed as they releases tons daily of the Carcinogen ISOPRENE. Equal in volumes of Millions of cigarettes each day.

3. Restaraunts will be outlawed from preparing any cooked foods as these release 100s of millions of equal cigarettes each day.

4. In home cooking is also outlawed as it produces upwards of 10s of thousands of equal cigarettes inside and outside the home.

5. Outdoor cookouts and fireworks are outlawed as they releases 100s of millions of equivalent cigarettes a day or on weekends in the yards and parks of our city.

6. Humans are hereby outlawed from existence insode the city limits as their own human breath contains hundreds of the same chemicals as found in tobacco smoke!

7. Nature itself is outlawed as it generates Billions of chemcial releases naturally into the atmosphere a day hense posing a threat to human life.

8. This Clean air law becomes effective Immediately.

9. Your preference of suicide is a personal choise,Police will write tickets and lock up any survivors after this law becomes effective. A grace period of 30 days will be in place to educate the public on its existence.

Signed into law by the GHOSTOWN ADMINISTRATION
Clean Air Quality Law It is hereby ordered that all things that generate chemical releases simular in nature to tobacco smoke are hereby OUTLAWED. 1. Automobiles and gas or diesel engines or any other contivance that emits chemcial releases. This savings equals to the public not being forced to inhale 100s of billions of cigarettes each day. 2. All plants are outlawed as they releases tons daily of the Carcinogen ISOPRENE. Equal in volumes of Millions of cigarettes each day. 3. Restaraunts will be outlawed from preparing any cooked foods as these release 100s of millions of equal cigarettes each day. 4. In home cooking is also outlawed as it produces upwards of 10s of thousands of equal cigarettes inside and outside the home. 5. Outdoor cookouts and fireworks are outlawed as they releases 100s of millions of equivalent cigarettes a day or on weekends in the yards and parks of our city. 6. Humans are hereby outlawed from existence insode the city limits as their own human breath contains hundreds of the same chemicals as found in tobacco smoke! 7. Nature itself is outlawed as it generates Billions of chemcial releases naturally into the atmosphere a day hense posing a threat to human life. 8. This Clean air law becomes effective Immediately. 9. Your preference of suicide is a personal choise,Police will write tickets and lock up any survivors after this law becomes effective. A grace period of 30 days will be in place to educate the public on its existence. Signed into law by the GHOSTOWN ADMINISTRATION harleyrider1777
  • Score: 2

7:04pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Harleyrider shoots himself in the foot when claiming that the lungs of dead smokers are 'safe' to use by quoting a report that states:

" For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none."

I suspect that most people in need of a transplant would take them from dodgy sources.
Harleyrider shoots himself in the foot when claiming that the lungs of dead smokers are 'safe' to use by quoting a report that states: " For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none." I suspect that most people in need of a transplant would take them from dodgy sources. ok,jared
  • Score: 4

7:06pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

So passive smoking is harmless?

http://www.nhs.uk/ch
q/pages/2289.aspx?ca
tegoryid=53&

It also smells.

HTH
So passive smoking is harmless? http://www.nhs.uk/ch q/pages/2289.aspx?ca tegoryid=53& It also smells. HTH ok,jared
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Thu 28 Aug 14

NathanAdler says...

Ask the late Roy Castles wife if second hand smoke is harmful?
Ask the late Roy Castles wife if second hand smoke is harmful? NathanAdler
  • Score: -3

7:49pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

NathanAdler wrote:
Ask the late Roy Castles wife if second hand smoke is harmful?
We did and she said well so what he smoked too! But then we didn't have his carcinomas genetically tested to see what type of cancer it actually was. It wasn't in our contract with CRUK and ASH at the time...........It would have destroyed the anti-smoking movement for the farce it was from the start!

Besides if we had told them what Roy was breathing in was only:

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,pic
ograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

We would really have looked the fool trying to claim he died of breathing normal air we all breathe.

The Doctors explained that Roys cancer was really his own fault as he had cancer running in his family for generations.........
....

Oh what to do now,come clean or just keep drawing my ASH paycheck to stay shut up!
[quote][p][bold]NathanAdler[/bold] wrote: Ask the late Roy Castles wife if second hand smoke is harmful?[/p][/quote]We did and she said well so what he smoked too! But then we didn't have his carcinomas genetically tested to see what type of cancer it actually was. It wasn't in our contract with CRUK and ASH at the time...........It would have destroyed the anti-smoking movement for the farce it was from the start! Besides if we had told them what Roy was breathing in was only: About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth. 4 % is carbon monoxide. 6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,pic ograms and femptograms...... (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). We would really have looked the fool trying to claim he died of breathing normal air we all breathe. The Doctors explained that Roys cancer was really his own fault as he had cancer running in his family for generations......... .... Oh what to do now,come clean or just keep drawing my ASH paycheck to stay shut up! harleyrider1777
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

ok,jared wrote:
Harleyrider shoots himself in the foot when claiming that the lungs of dead smokers are 'safe' to use by quoting a report that states:

" For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none."

I suspect that most people in need of a transplant would take them from dodgy sources.
You shoot yourself in the foot you see that study was updated and it turns out smokers lungs had 90% better survival rates at 3 years than non smokers lungs...............
....I know its a bit hard to realize your junk science going up in smoke all at once but ehh! Any movement that has to CREATE its own so called science to justify its prohibitional laws is bound to get busted and laughed out of the country sooner or later right!

Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

''Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

Read under the title :
Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created

http://www.milbank.o
rg/uploads/documents
/0712populationhealt
h/0712populationheal
th.html

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act". The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related.

HATE IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: Harleyrider shoots himself in the foot when claiming that the lungs of dead smokers are 'safe' to use by quoting a report that states: " For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none." I suspect that most people in need of a transplant would take them from dodgy sources.[/p][/quote]You shoot yourself in the foot you see that study was updated and it turns out smokers lungs had 90% better survival rates at 3 years than non smokers lungs............... ....I know its a bit hard to realize your junk science going up in smoke all at once but ehh! Any movement that has to CREATE its own so called science to justify its prohibitional laws is bound to get busted and laughed out of the country sooner or later right! Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts? ''Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.” Read under the title : Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created http://www.milbank.o rg/uploads/documents /0712populationhealt h/0712populationheal th.html The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act". The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related. HATE IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE harleyrider1777
  • Score: -1

7:58pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke

The same thing is true in America with OSHA Proof of harm must be proven to get a law passed and since they cant even prove harn from direct smoking they meaning you have no case at all!


Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

nap.edu

This sorta says it all

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzopyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!
The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke The same thing is true in America with OSHA Proof of harm must be proven to get a law passed and since they cant even prove harn from direct smoking they meaning you have no case at all! Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition nap.edu This sorta says it all These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one. So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS'' OSHA SAFE LEVELS All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR. For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes. "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes. "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes. Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up. "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes. For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time. The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes. So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets : Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA. Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -1

8:12pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

harleyrider1777 wrote:
NathanAdler wrote:
Ask the late Roy Castles wife if second hand smoke is harmful?
We did and she said well so what he smoked too! But then we didn't have his carcinomas genetically tested to see what type of cancer it actually was. It wasn't in our contract with CRUK and ASH at the time...........It would have destroyed the anti-smoking movement for the farce it was from the start!

Besides if we had told them what Roy was breathing in was only:

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,pic

ograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

We would really have looked the fool trying to claim he died of breathing normal air we all breathe.

The Doctors explained that Roys cancer was really his own fault as he had cancer running in his family for generations.........

....

Oh what to do now,come clean or just keep drawing my ASH paycheck to stay shut up!
^^^^^utter drivel^^^^^
[quote][p][bold]harleyrider1777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NathanAdler[/bold] wrote: Ask the late Roy Castles wife if second hand smoke is harmful?[/p][/quote]We did and she said well so what he smoked too! But then we didn't have his carcinomas genetically tested to see what type of cancer it actually was. It wasn't in our contract with CRUK and ASH at the time...........It would have destroyed the anti-smoking movement for the farce it was from the start! Besides if we had told them what Roy was breathing in was only: About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth. 4 % is carbon monoxide. 6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,pic ograms and femptograms...... (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). We would really have looked the fool trying to claim he died of breathing normal air we all breathe. The Doctors explained that Roys cancer was really his own fault as he had cancer running in his family for generations......... .... Oh what to do now,come clean or just keep drawing my ASH paycheck to stay shut up![/p][/quote]^^^^^utter drivel^^^^^ ok,jared
  • Score: 1

8:13pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

"You shoot yourself in the foot you see that study was updated..."

I wasn't the one who put the study forward.....that was YOU.
"You shoot yourself in the foot you see that study was updated..." I wasn't the one who put the study forward.....that was YOU. ok,jared
  • Score: 1

8:17pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

I love it when smokers step up to defend their vile habit.

Here are a few facts:

1) You smell......badly.

2) You choose to smell badly, which calls into question your mentality.

3) You like to think you look so cool with a fag in your mouth/hand....you don't. You look pathetic.

4) You make a mess and nasty smell everywhere you go.

5) You kill other people, some of whom you've never met.

6) Your skin and teeth are gross.

7) Watching smokers gathered together trying to out-pose each other is one of the funniest sights around.
I love it when smokers step up to defend their vile habit. Here are a few facts: 1) You smell......badly. 2) You choose to smell badly, which calls into question your mentality. 3) You like to think you look so cool with a fag in your mouth/hand....you don't. You look pathetic. 4) You make a mess and nasty smell everywhere you go. 5) You kill other people, some of whom you've never met. 6) Your skin and teeth are gross. 7) Watching smokers gathered together trying to out-pose each other is one of the funniest sights around. ok,jared
  • Score: 0

9:48pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Minion says...

harleyrider1777 wrote:
Minion wrote:
Pointless article. Smokers that successfully quit last year aren't going to quit again this year, are they? Not everyone who quits signs up to the NHS quit smoking course. Someone needs to work out percentages of total smokers that sign up, then percentage of those that succeed. If anyone actually really cares...

Setting a date to stop smoking is a bad idea. If people don't manage to quit on this date they'll assume they've failed and just keep smoking, I see people do that all the time.
It's a bit like running a marathon, it's not about coming first, it's about completion. If you fall over, get up and keep going, don't just assume you've lost and leave the race because you can't complete it 'in time', cutting down slowly and taking months to quit is better than not quitting at all. I took 6 weeks to quit, I'd have half a fag here and there, and so many people would say to me "oh nooooo! you were doing so well!", as if I'd failed by having half a cigarette in 3 days, I ignored them as I knew that it was better than smoking a pack of 20 every day like I used to.

Good luck to anyone who wants to quit, and don't let other people's opinions on how well you're doing deter you.
NRT Failure Rate Soars to 98.4%

New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.

PRLog (Press Release) - Apr 03, 2009 -
New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.

NRT is the Government’s recommended treatment for its smoking cessation programmes and is heavily funded by the tax-payer.

Pro-choice group Freedom2choose are alarmed at these revelations and the obvious waste of tax-payers’ funds. Colin Grainger, vice chairman of the group states, “NRT products are obviously unfit for the purpose for which they are sold. This is fraud, wrong and immoral.”

Freedom2choose have previously highlighted alternative ways to successfully quit smoking, including the Allen Carr method, with a documented success rate of 58% for those choosing to give up. The Allen Carr method even promises a money back guarantee to those that don’t successfully quit.

“More worryingly,” continues Colin Grainger “is the shock that the scientists who put the study together even work for the manufacturers of NRT. This clearly shows how the Big Pharmaceutical companies influence the outcome of studies.”

The revelations were originally made public by long-term anti-smoking campaigner Professor Michael Siegel who states “With a long-term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, one can hardly call NRT treatment an "effective" intervention. In fact, the logical conclusion from this paper is that NRT was a dismal intervention.”


Reference: NRT Failure Rate 98.4% - http://www.tobaccoan

alysis.blogspot.com/



http://www.prlog.org

/10211087-nrt-failur

e-rate-soars-to-984.

html

Friday, July 27, 2012
Pharmaceutical Nicotine and Chantix: 93% Failure Rate Reconfirmed

A study published in the European Journal of Internal Medicine indicates that pharmaceutical nicotine and Chantix (varenicline) had 93% failure rates at two inner city academic health center clinics with predominantly Medicaid patients (abstract here).

http://rodutobaccotr

uth.blogspot.com/201

2/07/pharmaceutical-

nicotine-and-chantix

-93.html
Um... why did you quote my post and then copy and paste a load of out of context and irrelevant NRT statistics under it?
[quote][p][bold]harleyrider1777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minion[/bold] wrote: Pointless article. Smokers that successfully quit last year aren't going to quit again this year, are they? Not everyone who quits signs up to the NHS quit smoking course. Someone needs to work out percentages of total smokers that sign up, then percentage of those that succeed. If anyone actually really cares... Setting a date to stop smoking is a bad idea. If people don't manage to quit on this date they'll assume they've failed and just keep smoking, I see people do that all the time. It's a bit like running a marathon, it's not about coming first, it's about completion. If you fall over, get up and keep going, don't just assume you've lost and leave the race because you can't complete it 'in time', cutting down slowly and taking months to quit is better than not quitting at all. I took 6 weeks to quit, I'd have half a fag here and there, and so many people would say to me "oh nooooo! you were doing so well!", as if I'd failed by having half a cigarette in 3 days, I ignored them as I knew that it was better than smoking a pack of 20 every day like I used to. Good luck to anyone who wants to quit, and don't let other people's opinions on how well you're doing deter you.[/p][/quote]NRT Failure Rate Soars to 98.4% New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%. PRLog (Press Release) - Apr 03, 2009 - New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%. NRT is the Government’s recommended treatment for its smoking cessation programmes and is heavily funded by the tax-payer. Pro-choice group Freedom2choose are alarmed at these revelations and the obvious waste of tax-payers’ funds. Colin Grainger, vice chairman of the group states, “NRT products are obviously unfit for the purpose for which they are sold. This is fraud, wrong and immoral.” Freedom2choose have previously highlighted alternative ways to successfully quit smoking, including the Allen Carr method, with a documented success rate of 58% for those choosing to give up. The Allen Carr method even promises a money back guarantee to those that don’t successfully quit. “More worryingly,” continues Colin Grainger “is the shock that the scientists who put the study together even work for the manufacturers of NRT. This clearly shows how the Big Pharmaceutical companies influence the outcome of studies.” The revelations were originally made public by long-term anti-smoking campaigner Professor Michael Siegel who states “With a long-term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, one can hardly call NRT treatment an "effective" intervention. In fact, the logical conclusion from this paper is that NRT was a dismal intervention.” Reference: NRT Failure Rate 98.4% - http://www.tobaccoan alysis.blogspot.com/ http://www.prlog.org /10211087-nrt-failur e-rate-soars-to-984. html Friday, July 27, 2012 Pharmaceutical Nicotine and Chantix: 93% Failure Rate Reconfirmed A study published in the European Journal of Internal Medicine indicates that pharmaceutical nicotine and Chantix (varenicline) had 93% failure rates at two inner city academic health center clinics with predominantly Medicaid patients (abstract here). http://rodutobaccotr uth.blogspot.com/201 2/07/pharmaceutical- nicotine-and-chantix -93.html[/p][/quote]Um... why did you quote my post and then copy and paste a load of out of context and irrelevant NRT statistics under it? Minion
  • Score: 2

9:56pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

The myth of smoking during pregnancy being harmful



Anonymous
Sott.net
Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:51 CDT

Print




Google+FB Share
In about 1999 I was asked to analyze the data of pregnant women with respect to smoking for a major health insurance company. They were running a campaign to get pregnant women to stop smoking and they expected to find interesting data to support their case.

I used to teach college courses covering the topic. The text books said that smoking causes underweight premature babies. Because of this babies of smoking mothers are more likely to have birth defects. With alcohol, two drinks a day was considered safe, but with tobacco, there was no safe threshold. I thought this was rather strange. You smoke one cigarette while pregnant and you are more likely to have birth defects? Even for a hard core health fanatic that is difficult to believe.

Here is what was found in the data. Babies of smoking mothers average weight was 3232 grams (7.1 lbs.). Babies of non-smoking mothers averaged 3398 grams (7.5 lbs.). That is about a half pound difference and it is statistically significant. Seven pounds is a good healthy birth weight that does not set off any alarms. Babies are considered underweight if they are less than 2270 grams (5 lbs.). 4.5% of smoking mothers babies were underweight and 3.3% of non-smoking mothers babies were underweight. This difference is not significant. There is no indication here of a health risk from smoking based on weight.

The other risk factor is length of term. Normal gestation is 253 days. 4% of smoking mothers did not go to term and 7.8% of non-smoking mothers did not go to term. Smoking mothers did better than non-smoking mothers but the difference was not significant. There was obviously no risk from reduced term for smoking mothers.

Because the non-smoking mothers had heavier babies one would expect more C-Sections from the non-smoking mothers. There were about 20% more. This is significant at the .05 level but not the .01 level so you could argue the significance either way depending on your bias. The data here is limited because only 5% of pregnant women smoked but the trend for smoking mothers was toward less babies retained in the hospital, less C-Sections, insignificantly fewer pre-term deliveries and an insignificant increase in clinically underweight babies.

This data can be explained by assuming that when pregnant women are stressed, they self medicate to relieve the stress. Non-smoking women tend to eat more causing the baby to be larger and more difficult to deliver. This can also cause other problems. Smoking women tend to light up when under stress. This is less harmful to the baby than over-eating. For this reason smoking mothers tended to have better outcomes for baby and mother. They also cost less for the insurance company.

You might be interested in knowing that this information was not used. I was told that the medical insurance business is highly regulated by the government. The company was not allowed to tell the truth about these results even though it was better for the insurance company and for the patients.

I do not think these results suggest that women should start smoking when they get pregnant. I do think it indicates that it is very poor practice to try to get smoking mothers to stop smoking when they get pregnant.
About me

I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology and have worked in both research and teaching. I am a health nut and do not endorse smoking or care to be around people smoking. I was shocked by these results. My bias if any is certainly against these results. However I think it is horrible to withhold information form people and intentionally give them bad advice to advance a political agenda.
The myth of smoking during pregnancy being harmful Anonymous Sott.net Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:51 CDT Print Google+FB Share In about 1999 I was asked to analyze the data of pregnant women with respect to smoking for a major health insurance company. They were running a campaign to get pregnant women to stop smoking and they expected to find interesting data to support their case. I used to teach college courses covering the topic. The text books said that smoking causes underweight premature babies. Because of this babies of smoking mothers are more likely to have birth defects. With alcohol, two drinks a day was considered safe, but with tobacco, there was no safe threshold. I thought this was rather strange. You smoke one cigarette while pregnant and you are more likely to have birth defects? Even for a hard core health fanatic that is difficult to believe. Here is what was found in the data. Babies of smoking mothers average weight was 3232 grams (7.1 lbs.). Babies of non-smoking mothers averaged 3398 grams (7.5 lbs.). That is about a half pound difference and it is statistically significant. Seven pounds is a good healthy birth weight that does not set off any alarms. Babies are considered underweight if they are less than 2270 grams (5 lbs.). 4.5% of smoking mothers babies were underweight and 3.3% of non-smoking mothers babies were underweight. This difference is not significant. There is no indication here of a health risk from smoking based on weight. The other risk factor is length of term. Normal gestation is 253 days. 4% of smoking mothers did not go to term and 7.8% of non-smoking mothers did not go to term. Smoking mothers did better than non-smoking mothers but the difference was not significant. There was obviously no risk from reduced term for smoking mothers. Because the non-smoking mothers had heavier babies one would expect more C-Sections from the non-smoking mothers. There were about 20% more. This is significant at the .05 level but not the .01 level so you could argue the significance either way depending on your bias. The data here is limited because only 5% of pregnant women smoked but the trend for smoking mothers was toward less babies retained in the hospital, less C-Sections, insignificantly fewer pre-term deliveries and an insignificant increase in clinically underweight babies. This data can be explained by assuming that when pregnant women are stressed, they self medicate to relieve the stress. Non-smoking women tend to eat more causing the baby to be larger and more difficult to deliver. This can also cause other problems. Smoking women tend to light up when under stress. This is less harmful to the baby than over-eating. For this reason smoking mothers tended to have better outcomes for baby and mother. They also cost less for the insurance company. You might be interested in knowing that this information was not used. I was told that the medical insurance business is highly regulated by the government. The company was not allowed to tell the truth about these results even though it was better for the insurance company and for the patients. I do not think these results suggest that women should start smoking when they get pregnant. I do think it indicates that it is very poor practice to try to get smoking mothers to stop smoking when they get pregnant. About me I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology and have worked in both research and teaching. I am a health nut and do not endorse smoking or care to be around people smoking. I was shocked by these results. My bias if any is certainly against these results. However I think it is horrible to withhold information form people and intentionally give them bad advice to advance a political agenda. harleyrider1777
  • Score: 0

10:00pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one.

Don't fret over list of cancer 'risks'
www.dispatch.com/...
/...r-list-ofcancer-
risks.html

"We are being bombarded" with messages about the dangers posed by common things in our lives, yet most exposures "are not at a level that are going to cause cancer," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society's deputy chief medical officer.
Linda Birnbaum agrees. She is a toxicologist who heads the government agency that just declared styrene, an ingredient in fiberglass boats and Styrofoam, a likely cancer risk.
"Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam," she said. Levels of styrene that leach from food containers "are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.
Carcinogens are things that can cause cancer, but that label doesn't mean that they will or that they pose a risk to anyone exposed to them in any amount at any time.

Now,Im glad to see the ACS admitting to the dose response relationship finally!

So now we understand why the following is factual:

are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.

ETS between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers

www.citeulike.org/us
er/vmarthia/article/
7458828

OSHA the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded

JUST AMAZING ISNT IT
...
Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one. Don't fret over list of cancer 'risks' www.dispatch.com/... /...r-list-ofcancer- risks.html "We are being bombarded" with messages about the dangers posed by common things in our lives, yet most exposures "are not at a level that are going to cause cancer," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society's deputy chief medical officer. Linda Birnbaum agrees. She is a toxicologist who heads the government agency that just declared styrene, an ingredient in fiberglass boats and Styrofoam, a likely cancer risk. "Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam," she said. Levels of styrene that leach from food containers "are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers. Carcinogens are things that can cause cancer, but that label doesn't mean that they will or that they pose a risk to anyone exposed to them in any amount at any time. Now,Im glad to see the ACS admitting to the dose response relationship finally! So now we understand why the following is factual: are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105. ETS between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers www.citeulike.org/us er/vmarthia/article/ 7458828 OSHA the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded JUST AMAZING ISNT IT ... harleyrider1777
  • Score: 0

10:02pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

The ACS really hated that one getting out when Dr Lichtenstein was interviewed at a airport in between national meetings they had the story yanked within 3 days and his blog he ran spent 2 weeks trying to retract his statements but to no avail..............T
he cat was out of the bag as they say!
The ACS really hated that one getting out when Dr Lichtenstein was interviewed at a airport in between national meetings they had the story yanked within 3 days and his blog he ran spent 2 weeks trying to retract his statements but to no avail..............T he cat was out of the bag as they say! harleyrider1777
  • Score: 0

10:57pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Minion wrote:
harleyrider1777 wrote:
Minion wrote:
Pointless article. Smokers that successfully quit last year aren't going to quit again this year, are they? Not everyone who quits signs up to the NHS quit smoking course. Someone needs to work out percentages of total smokers that sign up, then percentage of those that succeed. If anyone actually really cares...

Setting a date to stop smoking is a bad idea. If people don't manage to quit on this date they'll assume they've failed and just keep smoking, I see people do that all the time.
It's a bit like running a marathon, it's not about coming first, it's about completion. If you fall over, get up and keep going, don't just assume you've lost and leave the race because you can't complete it 'in time', cutting down slowly and taking months to quit is better than not quitting at all. I took 6 weeks to quit, I'd have half a fag here and there, and so many people would say to me "oh nooooo! you were doing so well!", as if I'd failed by having half a cigarette in 3 days, I ignored them as I knew that it was better than smoking a pack of 20 every day like I used to.

Good luck to anyone who wants to quit, and don't let other people's opinions on how well you're doing deter you.
NRT Failure Rate Soars to 98.4%

New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.

PRLog (Press Release) - Apr 03, 2009 -
New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.

NRT is the Government’s recommended treatment for its smoking cessation programmes and is heavily funded by the tax-payer.

Pro-choice group Freedom2choose are alarmed at these revelations and the obvious waste of tax-payers’ funds. Colin Grainger, vice chairman of the group states, “NRT products are obviously unfit for the purpose for which they are sold. This is fraud, wrong and immoral.”

Freedom2choose have previously highlighted alternative ways to successfully quit smoking, including the Allen Carr method, with a documented success rate of 58% for those choosing to give up. The Allen Carr method even promises a money back guarantee to those that don’t successfully quit.

“More worryingly,” continues Colin Grainger “is the shock that the scientists who put the study together even work for the manufacturers of NRT. This clearly shows how the Big Pharmaceutical companies influence the outcome of studies.”

The revelations were originally made public by long-term anti-smoking campaigner Professor Michael Siegel who states “With a long-term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, one can hardly call NRT treatment an "effective" intervention. In fact, the logical conclusion from this paper is that NRT was a dismal intervention.”


Reference: NRT Failure Rate 98.4% - http://www.tobaccoan


alysis.blogspot.com/




http://www.prlog.org


/10211087-nrt-failur


e-rate-soars-to-984.


html

Friday, July 27, 2012
Pharmaceutical Nicotine and Chantix: 93% Failure Rate Reconfirmed

A study published in the European Journal of Internal Medicine indicates that pharmaceutical nicotine and Chantix (varenicline) had 93% failure rates at two inner city academic health center clinics with predominantly Medicaid patients (abstract here).

http://rodutobaccotr


uth.blogspot.com/201


2/07/pharmaceutical-


nicotine-and-chantix


-93.html
Um... why did you quote my post and then copy and paste a load of out of context and irrelevant NRT statistics under it?
Cos he's an idiot smoker
[quote][p][bold]Minion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]harleyrider1777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minion[/bold] wrote: Pointless article. Smokers that successfully quit last year aren't going to quit again this year, are they? Not everyone who quits signs up to the NHS quit smoking course. Someone needs to work out percentages of total smokers that sign up, then percentage of those that succeed. If anyone actually really cares... Setting a date to stop smoking is a bad idea. If people don't manage to quit on this date they'll assume they've failed and just keep smoking, I see people do that all the time. It's a bit like running a marathon, it's not about coming first, it's about completion. If you fall over, get up and keep going, don't just assume you've lost and leave the race because you can't complete it 'in time', cutting down slowly and taking months to quit is better than not quitting at all. I took 6 weeks to quit, I'd have half a fag here and there, and so many people would say to me "oh nooooo! you were doing so well!", as if I'd failed by having half a cigarette in 3 days, I ignored them as I knew that it was better than smoking a pack of 20 every day like I used to. Good luck to anyone who wants to quit, and don't let other people's opinions on how well you're doing deter you.[/p][/quote]NRT Failure Rate Soars to 98.4% New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%. PRLog (Press Release) - Apr 03, 2009 - New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%. NRT is the Government’s recommended treatment for its smoking cessation programmes and is heavily funded by the tax-payer. Pro-choice group Freedom2choose are alarmed at these revelations and the obvious waste of tax-payers’ funds. Colin Grainger, vice chairman of the group states, “NRT products are obviously unfit for the purpose for which they are sold. This is fraud, wrong and immoral.” Freedom2choose have previously highlighted alternative ways to successfully quit smoking, including the Allen Carr method, with a documented success rate of 58% for those choosing to give up. The Allen Carr method even promises a money back guarantee to those that don’t successfully quit. “More worryingly,” continues Colin Grainger “is the shock that the scientists who put the study together even work for the manufacturers of NRT. This clearly shows how the Big Pharmaceutical companies influence the outcome of studies.” The revelations were originally made public by long-term anti-smoking campaigner Professor Michael Siegel who states “With a long-term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, one can hardly call NRT treatment an "effective" intervention. In fact, the logical conclusion from this paper is that NRT was a dismal intervention.” Reference: NRT Failure Rate 98.4% - http://www.tobaccoan alysis.blogspot.com/ http://www.prlog.org /10211087-nrt-failur e-rate-soars-to-984. html Friday, July 27, 2012 Pharmaceutical Nicotine and Chantix: 93% Failure Rate Reconfirmed A study published in the European Journal of Internal Medicine indicates that pharmaceutical nicotine and Chantix (varenicline) had 93% failure rates at two inner city academic health center clinics with predominantly Medicaid patients (abstract here). http://rodutobaccotr uth.blogspot.com/201 2/07/pharmaceutical- nicotine-and-chantix -93.html[/p][/quote]Um... why did you quote my post and then copy and paste a load of out of context and irrelevant NRT statistics under it?[/p][/quote]Cos he's an idiot smoker ok,jared
  • Score: 0

11:13pm Thu 28 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Your blather was totally about quitting smoking. Your intent was not using the worthless NRT drugs pharma sells but to go cold turkey. Point here is its not your business nor anyone elses if somebody smokes or even where they smoke. Nor is it the governments business............
...Its the person smoking and the owner of the property the smoker happens to be in if they should smoke there or not. If you want to blather public places that's simple smokers have as much righ to smoke there as you havea right to breathe there. If its privately owned you follow the owners rules.........For the record a hospital is a public place and open to be smoked in regardless of your law or personal hatreds.............
. The NHS can go stuff it right along with ASH and CRUK!
Your blather was totally about quitting smoking. Your intent was not using the worthless NRT drugs pharma sells but to go cold turkey. Point here is its not your business nor anyone elses if somebody smokes or even where they smoke. Nor is it the governments business............ ...Its the person smoking and the owner of the property the smoker happens to be in if they should smoke there or not. If you want to blather public places that's simple smokers have as much righ to smoke there as you havea right to breathe there. If its privately owned you follow the owners rules.........For the record a hospital is a public place and open to be smoked in regardless of your law or personal hatreds............. . The NHS can go stuff it right along with ASH and CRUK! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -1

11:29pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Minion says...

harleyrider1777 wrote:
Your blather was totally about quitting smoking. Your intent was not using the worthless NRT drugs pharma sells but to go cold turkey. Point here is its not your business nor anyone elses if somebody smokes or even where they smoke. Nor is it the governments business............

...Its the person smoking and the owner of the property the smoker happens to be in if they should smoke there or not. If you want to blather public places that's simple smokers have as much righ to smoke there as you havea right to breathe there. If its privately owned you follow the owners rules.........For the record a hospital is a public place and open to be smoked in regardless of your law or personal hatreds.............

. The NHS can go stuff it right along with ASH and CRUK!
lol, if you didn't read my post, I doubt you read all the crap you copied and pasted, I know I didn't, there's too much of it, like the rantings of a mad man. I don't care if smoking turned out to be good for you.

My post was about NOT going cold turkey, it was advice to anyone who is quitting to cut down in their own time, and not to be discouraged by people who think they SHOULD have gone cold turkey. I didn't tell anyone they SHOULD quit, only wished those who are trying to quit, some luck. You can't tell people to quit, one can only quit if they want to quit. You will never quit if you want to smoke.
If you want to smoke, go ahead. I don't give a ****.
[quote][p][bold]harleyrider1777[/bold] wrote: Your blather was totally about quitting smoking. Your intent was not using the worthless NRT drugs pharma sells but to go cold turkey. Point here is its not your business nor anyone elses if somebody smokes or even where they smoke. Nor is it the governments business............ ...Its the person smoking and the owner of the property the smoker happens to be in if they should smoke there or not. If you want to blather public places that's simple smokers have as much righ to smoke there as you havea right to breathe there. If its privately owned you follow the owners rules.........For the record a hospital is a public place and open to be smoked in regardless of your law or personal hatreds............. . The NHS can go stuff it right along with ASH and CRUK![/p][/quote]lol, if you didn't read my post, I doubt you read all the crap you copied and pasted, I know I didn't, there's too much of it, like the rantings of a mad man. I don't care if smoking turned out to be good for you. My post was about NOT going cold turkey, it was advice to anyone who is quitting to cut down in their own time, and not to be discouraged by people who think they SHOULD have gone cold turkey. I didn't tell anyone they SHOULD quit, only wished those who are trying to quit, some luck. You can't tell people to quit, one can only quit if they want to quit. You will never quit if you want to smoke. If you want to smoke, go ahead. I don't give a ****. Minion
  • Score: 1

12:19am Fri 29 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

If you want to use criminal laws to get your smokefree Utopia it matters to me and about 20 million other UK citizens that smoke if not more. Nobody knows how many smoke nor will they ever know. Just like all their magical claims its all statistical magic just like their direct smoking claims and then about the so called OBESITY epidemic that never existed,or the madd hatter drinkers beating their wives everynite as they came home from the PUBS............Its the same old horse hockey everytime Prohibitionists show up in History.

19th Century laws in the 21st century

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.
If you want to use criminal laws to get your smokefree Utopia it matters to me and about 20 million other UK citizens that smoke if not more. Nobody knows how many smoke nor will they ever know. Just like all their magical claims its all statistical magic just like their direct smoking claims and then about the so called OBESITY epidemic that never existed,or the madd hatter drinkers beating their wives everynite as they came home from the PUBS............Its the same old horse hockey everytime Prohibitionists show up in History. 19th Century laws in the 21st century 1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10). 1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children. 1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says. 1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do." 1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee. 1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google. harleyrider1777
  • Score: 0

1:01am Fri 29 Aug 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

I am impressed and grateful to read all these comments,albeit with some reservations about some of the crimes against science quoted that have been used by anti- and pro-smoking advocates, lobbyists and industry. Well said by Minion who points out that sudden and complete abstinence should be challenged...unless perhaps you've got a gas leak or receive domicilliary oxygen therapy.
There are quite convoluted arguments about biological, social, and psychological effects from smoking. I could bore at considerable length with factoids and the strength of evidence from rigorously studied minutiae. I'll spare the handful of insomniacs the pain and just suggest (-emphasis suggest) that any guidance from any group or organisation, for or against, can be ignored unless they have also presented and evaluated arguments and evidence to support the beneficial effects of smoking (because there are many) against the harmful effects (because there are many). I'm not aware of any encompassing, authoritative, guidance that has uet used such a scientific approach.

I see it all very much as the general population, as usual, being let down by the cretins (who have much to gain) at opposing poles of the debate.
Sadly, the same can still be said for religion.
I smoke occasionally and vigorously abstain likewise.
I am impressed and grateful to read all these comments,albeit with some reservations about some of the crimes against science quoted that have been used by anti- and pro-smoking advocates, lobbyists and industry. Well said by Minion who points out that sudden and complete abstinence should be challenged...unless perhaps you've got a gas leak or receive domicilliary oxygen therapy. There are quite convoluted arguments about biological, social, and psychological effects from smoking. I could bore at considerable length with factoids and the strength of evidence from rigorously studied minutiae. I'll spare the handful of insomniacs the pain and just suggest (-emphasis suggest) that any guidance from any group or organisation, for or against, can be ignored unless they have also presented and evaluated arguments and evidence to support the beneficial effects of smoking (because there are many) against the harmful effects (because there are many). I'm not aware of any encompassing, authoritative, guidance that has uet used such a scientific approach. I see it all very much as the general population, as usual, being let down by the cretins (who have much to gain) at opposing poles of the debate. Sadly, the same can still be said for religion. I smoke occasionally and vigorously abstain likewise. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 1

2:29am Fri 29 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

I also think it's amusing when smokers like Harleyrider (sh*tty shiny motorcycles owned by gay freaks) try to use science to defend their smelly revolting habit.
I also think it's amusing when smokers like Harleyrider (sh*tty shiny motorcycles owned by gay freaks) try to use science to defend their smelly revolting habit. ok,jared
  • Score: 0

10:47am Fri 29 Aug 14

NathanAdler says...

Absolutely agree with the above.

Smokers who try and state stupid scientific studies to justify their habit.

The only reason they read such nonsense is because they are WEAK and DESPERATE people who are too feeble to give up a 3 inch cancer stick.

The sooner the NHS stop treating smokers, the better.
Absolutely agree with the above. Smokers who try and state stupid scientific studies to justify their habit. The only reason they read such nonsense is because they are WEAK and DESPERATE people who are too feeble to give up a 3 inch cancer stick. The sooner the NHS stop treating smokers, the better. NathanAdler
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree