Campaign aims to stamp out smoking

This Is Wiltshire: Mark England is the face of a new Smokefree South West campaign and his daughter Siobhan helped him to give up 	Picture: DAVE COX Mark England is the face of a new Smokefree South West campaign and his daughter Siobhan helped him to give up Picture: DAVE COX

A HARD-hitting campaign to eradicate one of Swindon’s biggest killers – smoking, which claims the lives of 260 people in the town each year – is being launched today.

The Be There Tomorrow initiative, instigated by Smokefree South West, is urgently calling on smokers across Swindon to quit their lethal habit before it is too late.

This year alone, around 260 residents are expected to die as a result of their addiction to tobacco.

A further 1,700 residents will suffer from a smoking-related disease.

In the face of such startling statistics, health chiefs and reformed smokers are encouraging Swindonians to give up their addiction for the sake not merely of their own health, but that of their families as well.

Every year, second-hand smoke exposure is responsible for 500 childhood diseases in Swindon.

Cherry Jones, director of public health for Swindon Council, said: “Here in Swindon, smoking is the single biggest cause of preventable illness, health inequalities and early deaths.

“Smoking is now a minority activity with, on average, only one in five adults still smoking. Yet despite all the excellent work being done to bring down smoking rates, it is still a very sad fact that this year, we would forecast that around 260 people in Swindon will die as a result of smoking.”

Around 700 of our children, aged 11 to 15, will also experiment with cigarettes for the first time in 2014, based on a report by Action on Smoking and Health.

But the impact of smoking does not just stop there – the toll of tobacco goes beyond the lives it takes as early death can devastate the families left behind.

Mark England became acutely aware of the impact his chain smoking had on his 11-year-old daughter Siobhan and their future as a family, when she voiced her fears that he would die.

On October 1, the Eldene administrator stubbed out his last cigarette and joined Stoptober, a 28-day national challenge, designed to help people quit the habit.

Four months on, his determination is still strong.

“I’ve given up for good now,” said the 40-year-old. “The guilt of my daughter being worried got too much. “The things she said really stayed in my head and meant I couldn’t carry on doing it. I feel better for stopping and she is obviously over the moon.”

Like most, he began smoking as a teenager and by the time he left school was ‘totally hooked’.

“Everyone was doing it then,” he said. “I started with roll-ups because no-one else could roll them so they didn’t ask me for one or pinch them. By the time I left school, I was totally hooked and smoking 20 a day, sometimes more in social situations.”

Mark tried giving up three years ago and was successful for nine months before relapsing while on holiday.

A year later, he made sure to surround himself with a network of health professionals before getting to the root of his tobacco addiction.

He contacted the free Swindon’s Stop Smoking Service, run by social enterprise SEQOL on behalf of Swindon Council.

Mark said: “I got to see an advisor straight away, who was brilliant. “We decided to give Champix a try and I was amazed by how well it worked. “You’re supposed to keep smoking whilst you’re taking the tablets but after the first week I just couldn’t. I tried but it was like sitting by a bonfire and trying to breathe. “There were no cravings or side effects; I just didn’t want to do it any more.”

A recent survey in Swindon carried out by Smokefree South West revealed that less than 1 in 10 people (4.6 per cent) of those questioned knew smoking-related diseases kill one in two smokers.

Coun Brian Mattock, cabinet member for health and adult social care, said: “It’s great to hear stories from people like Mark, who after so many years of smoking have still managed to kick the habit, and his whole family are now feeling the benefits.

“We are committed to assisting people as much as possible to give up. “I hope Mark’s positive experience will help inspire others to call in and try the wide range of support available.”

For more information and advice, contact the SEQOL Swindon Stop Smoking service on 0800 3892229 or 01793 465513. Alternatively text 078812 81797 or email besmokefree@seqol.org

Comments (96)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:44am Mon 10 Feb 14

house on the hill says...

Affects your health and life expectancy, costs a fortune and makes you smell like an old ash tray. Why???

Yes its freedom of choice, but why would you want to make all those choices??? Sorry I just don't get that. Go and work in Prospect and watch how smokers die way before their time, if that doesn't put you off, then nothing will.
Affects your health and life expectancy, costs a fortune and makes you smell like an old ash tray. Why??? Yes its freedom of choice, but why would you want to make all those choices??? Sorry I just don't get that. Go and work in Prospect and watch how smokers die way before their time, if that doesn't put you off, then nothing will. house on the hill

7:37am Mon 10 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped.

When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped.

To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht.
com

- MJM
Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped. When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped. To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht. com - MJM Michael J. McFadden

7:52am Mon 10 Feb 14

semitonic says...

MJM: "When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped."

On the contrary, sounds to me like it should be positively encouraged.
MJM: "When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped." On the contrary, sounds to me like it should be positively encouraged. semitonic

8:11am Mon 10 Feb 14

stfcdod says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped.

When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped.

To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht.

com

- MJM
Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it.
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped. When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped. To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht. com - MJM[/p][/quote]Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it. stfcdod

8:16am Mon 10 Feb 14

house on the hill says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped.

When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped.

To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht.

com

- MJM
So the fact that this movement is actually about saving lives and improving the quality of life is irrelevant then? Or knowing exposing kids to smoke that could affect the rest of their lives? You have clearly never lost someone to lung cancer about 20 years before their time then! And if people spend less on smoking they will spend it elsewhere so jobs will be created there to cope with the extra demand. Typical narrow minded article.
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped. When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped. To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht. com - MJM[/p][/quote]So the fact that this movement is actually about saving lives and improving the quality of life is irrelevant then? Or knowing exposing kids to smoke that could affect the rest of their lives? You have clearly never lost someone to lung cancer about 20 years before their time then! And if people spend less on smoking they will spend it elsewhere so jobs will be created there to cope with the extra demand. Typical narrow minded article. house on the hill

10:28am Mon 10 Feb 14

PaulD says...

a simple question I'd ask anyone who opposes curbs on smoking...

Would you advise anyone to ever take up smoking?
a simple question I'd ask anyone who opposes curbs on smoking... Would you advise anyone to ever take up smoking? PaulD

10:38am Mon 10 Feb 14

RichardR1 says...

I would simply ask if the NHS really want people to give up the habit, and yes they should, why are they putting a huge wedge in the way of the biggest aid to quitting, The Ecig, could it be their backers, the Pharmaceutical Industry have told the NHS they will stop giving them free drugs.

When the former Head of the smoking ban campaign Professor John Britton says Ecigs could save 5 million lives, why is he being ignored.
I would simply ask if the NHS really want people to give up the habit, and yes they should, why are they putting a huge wedge in the way of the biggest aid to quitting, The Ecig, could it be their backers, the Pharmaceutical Industry have told the NHS they will stop giving them free drugs. When the former Head of the smoking ban campaign Professor John Britton says Ecigs could save 5 million lives, why is he being ignored. RichardR1

10:44am Mon 10 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

Adver wrote:
A further 1,700 residents will suffer from a smoking-related disease.

A further 1900 residents will suffer from acute sexually transmitted infections.
There'll be nearly 30 new cases of tuberculosis. 1020 admissions for drug misuse. And almost as many expensive hip fractures in the over 65s as 'smoking-related deaths', not to mention 740 hospitalisations for self-harm and an estimated 110 'excess winter deaths', none of which raise any revenue for HMRC.

I can't help wondering how many smokers will be bullied into quitting, then pile on the pounds, become obese, get diabetes, lose their self-esteem to the point where they start doing drugs and selling themselves to raise money, thereby catching an STD or TB, spiralling into a cycle of self-harm and hospitalisation, until, after years of this abuse, their hips give out from the excess weight and they end up dying in an alley during a cold snap.

Statistics don't lie, the link is clearly there somewhere. Perhaps I should write a book about it. What do you think, MJM, would it sell?
[quote][p][bold]Adver[/bold] wrote: A further 1,700 residents will suffer from a smoking-related disease. [/quote] A further 1900 residents will suffer from acute sexually transmitted infections. There'll be nearly 30 new cases of tuberculosis. 1020 admissions for drug misuse. And almost as many expensive hip fractures in the over 65s as 'smoking-related deaths', not to mention 740 hospitalisations for self-harm and an estimated 110 'excess winter deaths', none of which raise any revenue for HMRC. I can't help wondering how many smokers will be bullied into quitting, then pile on the pounds, become obese, get diabetes, lose their self-esteem to the point where they start doing drugs and selling themselves to raise money, thereby catching an STD or TB, spiralling into a cycle of self-harm and hospitalisation, until, after years of this abuse, their hips give out from the excess weight and they end up dying in an alley during a cold snap. Statistics don't lie, the link is clearly there somewhere. Perhaps I should write a book about it. What do you think, MJM, would it sell? Hmmmf

10:51am Mon 10 Feb 14

adsinibiza says...

I think the keyword here is addiction. Smoking tobacco is highly addictive - a fact that many youngsters probably don't realise when they start smoking.

Taking the risk of incurring the wrath of the pro-smokers I think it is about time the government bit the bullet nand banned the sale of tobacco products in the UK
I think the keyword here is addiction. Smoking tobacco is highly addictive - a fact that many youngsters probably don't realise when they start smoking. Taking the risk of incurring the wrath of the pro-smokers I think it is about time the government bit the bullet nand banned the sale of tobacco products in the UK adsinibiza

10:52am Mon 10 Feb 14

benzss says...

RichardR1 wrote:
I would simply ask if the NHS really want people to give up the habit, and yes they should, why are they putting a huge wedge in the way of the biggest aid to quitting, The Ecig, could it be their backers, the Pharmaceutical Industry have told the NHS they will stop giving them free drugs.

When the former Head of the smoking ban campaign Professor John Britton says Ecigs could save 5 million lives, why is he being ignored.
Quite right. It seems bizarre to me that so many anti-smoking groups steadfastly refuse to consider a harm reduction strategy.
[quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: I would simply ask if the NHS really want people to give up the habit, and yes they should, why are they putting a huge wedge in the way of the biggest aid to quitting, The Ecig, could it be their backers, the Pharmaceutical Industry have told the NHS they will stop giving them free drugs. When the former Head of the smoking ban campaign Professor John Britton says Ecigs could save 5 million lives, why is he being ignored.[/p][/quote]Quite right. It seems bizarre to me that so many anti-smoking groups steadfastly refuse to consider a harm reduction strategy. benzss

10:56am Mon 10 Feb 14

scottwichall says...

benzss wrote:
RichardR1 wrote:
I would simply ask if the NHS really want people to give up the habit, and yes they should, why are they putting a huge wedge in the way of the biggest aid to quitting, The Ecig, could it be their backers, the Pharmaceutical Industry have told the NHS they will stop giving them free drugs.

When the former Head of the smoking ban campaign Professor John Britton says Ecigs could save 5 million lives, why is he being ignored.
Quite right. It seems bizarre to me that so many anti-smoking groups steadfastly refuse to consider a harm reduction strategy.
That's because it now has nothing to do with harm reduction. Its about protecting pharmco income (useless NRT devices), and about denormalising smokers.

We know what happened to the last group of people who were denormalised don't we.

Also, Clive Bates, former head of ASH is 100% behind e-cigs - that should tell you something.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: I would simply ask if the NHS really want people to give up the habit, and yes they should, why are they putting a huge wedge in the way of the biggest aid to quitting, The Ecig, could it be their backers, the Pharmaceutical Industry have told the NHS they will stop giving them free drugs. When the former Head of the smoking ban campaign Professor John Britton says Ecigs could save 5 million lives, why is he being ignored.[/p][/quote]Quite right. It seems bizarre to me that so many anti-smoking groups steadfastly refuse to consider a harm reduction strategy.[/p][/quote]That's because it now has nothing to do with harm reduction. Its about protecting pharmco income (useless NRT devices), and about denormalising smokers. We know what happened to the last group of people who were denormalised don't we. Also, Clive Bates, former head of ASH is 100% behind e-cigs - that should tell you something. scottwichall

11:01am Mon 10 Feb 14

Robh says...

Whilst it is legal to smoke and taxable the government will nothing more. Now have them trying to ban e-cigarettes. Why? Because they are not taxed as tobacco products.

For years they have been using scare tactics to stop people smoking and even put lies on the packets such as 'Smoking Kills' Which would be banned by trading standards. But it still hasn't worked.

We need to persuade the young not to smoke in an honest and logical manner. It will take a few generations but we will eventually stop it.
Whilst it is legal to smoke and taxable the government will nothing more. Now have them trying to ban e-cigarettes. Why? Because they are not taxed as tobacco products. For years they have been using scare tactics to stop people smoking and even put lies on the packets such as 'Smoking Kills' Which would be banned by trading standards. But it still hasn't worked. We need to persuade the young not to smoke in an honest and logical manner. It will take a few generations but we will eventually stop it. Robh

11:03am Mon 10 Feb 14

RichardR1 says...

Those who make their living from being funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry, via the various false charities cannot admit their methods don't work, let alone admit Ecigs do.

Look at the latest Heart Attack ads, they couldn't be used against Ecigs. That in itself gives Ecigs the edge.
Those who make their living from being funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry, via the various false charities cannot admit their methods don't work, let alone admit Ecigs do. Look at the latest Heart Attack ads, they couldn't be used against Ecigs. That in itself gives Ecigs the edge. RichardR1

11:06am Mon 10 Feb 14

scottwichall says...

RichardR1 wrote:
Those who make their living from being funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry, via the various false charities cannot admit their methods don't work, let alone admit Ecigs do.

Look at the latest Heart Attack ads, they couldn't be used against Ecigs. That in itself gives Ecigs the edge.
I know quite a few people who have made the jump to e-cigs.

They have smoked a single cigarette since, compared to the ones who have tried the useless patches and all failed.
[quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: Those who make their living from being funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry, via the various false charities cannot admit their methods don't work, let alone admit Ecigs do. Look at the latest Heart Attack ads, they couldn't be used against Ecigs. That in itself gives Ecigs the edge.[/p][/quote]I know quite a few people who have made the jump to e-cigs. They have smoked a single cigarette since, compared to the ones who have tried the useless patches and all failed. scottwichall

11:09am Mon 10 Feb 14

RichardR1 says...

adsinibizaoking is indeed addictive, or as some would say habit forming, however it is not the addiction that kills it's the tar and related chemicals. Ecigs don't have that hence so many Medics believing they are a positive and an effective aid to saving life.

Government will never ban tobacco, which is the ultimate hypocrisy.
adsinibizaoking is indeed addictive, or as some would say habit forming, however it is not the addiction that kills it's the tar and related chemicals. Ecigs don't have that hence so many Medics believing they are a positive and an effective aid to saving life. Government will never ban tobacco, which is the ultimate hypocrisy. RichardR1

11:14am Mon 10 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

RichardR1 wrote:
The Ecig, could it be their backers, the Pharmaceutical Industry have told the NHS they will stop giving them free drugs.

Why on earth would they do that, it's the 'Pharmaceutical Industry' that makes all the nicotine replacement therapies like patches, gums, sprays et al which the NHS cheerfully buy and then give away for 'free'? If you were 'Big Pharma' wouldn't you rather have people addicted to your products than Big Tobacco's?
[quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: The Ecig, could it be their backers, the Pharmaceutical Industry have told the NHS they will stop giving them free drugs.[/quote] Why on earth would they do that, it's the 'Pharmaceutical Industry' that makes all the nicotine replacement therapies like patches, gums, sprays et al which the NHS cheerfully buy and then give away for 'free'? If you were 'Big Pharma' wouldn't you rather have people addicted to your products than Big Tobacco's? Hmmmf

11:49am Mon 10 Feb 14

swindondad says...

adsinibiza wrote:
I think the keyword here is addiction. Smoking tobacco is highly addictive - a fact that many youngsters probably don't realise when they start smoking. Taking the risk of incurring the wrath of the pro-smokers I think it is about time the government bit the bullet nand banned the sale of tobacco products in the UK
Blanket “prohibition” does not work unless the population agrees with it.

“Banning” smoking or alcohol will just increase the opportunities for criminals to take over the supply and distribution (and the tax revenue it currently generates) leaving the tax payer to continue to pick up the bill for any treatment users need.

There should IMHO be more effort placed on changing attitudes if you take “drink driving” as a case study. Even 20 years ago it was more prevalent than it is now and the change has been mainly that it is no longer socially acceptable not any change in the law or its enforcement.

Yes I am en EX smoker (healthier and wealthier for it) but I am also a realist.
[quote][p][bold]adsinibiza[/bold] wrote: I think the keyword here is addiction. Smoking tobacco is highly addictive - a fact that many youngsters probably don't realise when they start smoking. Taking the risk of incurring the wrath of the pro-smokers I think it is about time the government bit the bullet nand banned the sale of tobacco products in the UK[/p][/quote]Blanket “prohibition” does not work unless the population agrees with it. “Banning” smoking or alcohol will just increase the opportunities for criminals to take over the supply and distribution (and the tax revenue it currently generates) leaving the tax payer to continue to pick up the bill for any treatment users need. There should IMHO be more effort placed on changing attitudes if you take “drink driving” as a case study. Even 20 years ago it was more prevalent than it is now and the change has been mainly that it is no longer socially acceptable not any change in the law or its enforcement. Yes I am en EX smoker (healthier and wealthier for it) but I am also a realist. swindondad

12:38pm Mon 10 Feb 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?
If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug? A.Baron-Cohen

12:58pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Davey Gravey says...

People who defend smoking or say something else is worse need their heads reading.
People who defend smoking or say something else is worse need their heads reading. Davey Gravey

1:19pm Mon 10 Feb 14

swindondad says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
People who defend smoking or say something else is worse need their heads reading.
What a strange/ misguided thing to say I am sure we could assemble a list of hundreds of things worse than smoking.
I will start the ball rolling with:

The Cretaceous–Paleoge
ne extinction event
Global Thermonuclear War,
The Black Death,
I am sure others could find more.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: People who defend smoking or say something else is worse need their heads reading.[/p][/quote]What a strange/ misguided thing to say I am sure we could assemble a list of hundreds of things worse than smoking. I will start the ball rolling with: The Cretaceous–Paleoge ne extinction event Global Thermonuclear War, The Black Death, I am sure others could find more. swindondad

1:28pm Mon 10 Feb 14

scottwichall says...

swindondad wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
People who defend smoking or say something else is worse need their heads reading.
What a strange/ misguided thing to say I am sure we could assemble a list of hundreds of things worse than smoking.
I will start the ball rolling with:

The Cretaceous–Paleoge

ne extinction event
Global Thermonuclear War,
The Black Death,
I am sure others could find more.
Lefties who want to spend lots of money that has been ripped from the rest of the population with the threat of violence. Mainly on useless white elephant vanity projects, or on a super-state wet dream of third sector quangoes.

Thats the first thing that springs to mind.
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: People who defend smoking or say something else is worse need their heads reading.[/p][/quote]What a strange/ misguided thing to say I am sure we could assemble a list of hundreds of things worse than smoking. I will start the ball rolling with: The Cretaceous–Paleoge ne extinction event Global Thermonuclear War, The Black Death, I am sure others could find more.[/p][/quote]Lefties who want to spend lots of money that has been ripped from the rest of the population with the threat of violence. Mainly on useless white elephant vanity projects, or on a super-state wet dream of third sector quangoes. Thats the first thing that springs to mind. scottwichall

1:33pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
People who defend smoking or say something else is worse need their heads reading.
So, using heroin isn't 'worse', then?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: People who defend smoking or say something else is worse need their heads reading.[/p][/quote]So, using heroin isn't 'worse', then? ChannelX

1:34pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?
That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?[/p][/quote]That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades. ChannelX

1:37pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Davey Gravey says...

Of course there are things worse than smoking. Using that as an excuse for smoking is what I was getting at.
Of course there are things worse than smoking. Using that as an excuse for smoking is what I was getting at. Davey Gravey

1:39pm Mon 10 Feb 14

house on the hill says...

swindondad wrote:
adsinibiza wrote:
I think the keyword here is addiction. Smoking tobacco is highly addictive - a fact that many youngsters probably don't realise when they start smoking. Taking the risk of incurring the wrath of the pro-smokers I think it is about time the government bit the bullet nand banned the sale of tobacco products in the UK
Blanket “prohibition” does not work unless the population agrees with it.

“Banning” smoking or alcohol will just increase the opportunities for criminals to take over the supply and distribution (and the tax revenue it currently generates) leaving the tax payer to continue to pick up the bill for any treatment users need.

There should IMHO be more effort placed on changing attitudes if you take “drink driving” as a case study. Even 20 years ago it was more prevalent than it is now and the change has been mainly that it is no longer socially acceptable not any change in the law or its enforcement.

Yes I am en EX smoker (healthier and wealthier for it) but I am also a realist.
I think you are right on that. At the moment it is too "cool" to smoke and the young think they are going to live forever anyway and once hooked, it is so much harder to give up. We need to make it socially downmarket to smoke and stop glamorising it and hopefully less and less will start and over time it will reduce the numbers overall. I don't think we will ever completely stub it out though.
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]adsinibiza[/bold] wrote: I think the keyword here is addiction. Smoking tobacco is highly addictive - a fact that many youngsters probably don't realise when they start smoking. Taking the risk of incurring the wrath of the pro-smokers I think it is about time the government bit the bullet nand banned the sale of tobacco products in the UK[/p][/quote]Blanket “prohibition” does not work unless the population agrees with it. “Banning” smoking or alcohol will just increase the opportunities for criminals to take over the supply and distribution (and the tax revenue it currently generates) leaving the tax payer to continue to pick up the bill for any treatment users need. There should IMHO be more effort placed on changing attitudes if you take “drink driving” as a case study. Even 20 years ago it was more prevalent than it is now and the change has been mainly that it is no longer socially acceptable not any change in the law or its enforcement. Yes I am en EX smoker (healthier and wealthier for it) but I am also a realist.[/p][/quote]I think you are right on that. At the moment it is too "cool" to smoke and the young think they are going to live forever anyway and once hooked, it is so much harder to give up. We need to make it socially downmarket to smoke and stop glamorising it and hopefully less and less will start and over time it will reduce the numbers overall. I don't think we will ever completely stub it out though. house on the hill

2:55pm Mon 10 Feb 14

CocoaClown says...

I recently saw a child about age 8 or 9 pretending to smoke one of those candy stick sweets saying to his friends "when I'm older I'm going to smoke just like my dad". Very sad to see and if I was closer I would have perhaps said something as he was with a group of friends.
Kids learn by example so less people smoking means it will be less appealing to the younger generation. My son is 7 and already knows the risks and comments how awful it smells.
I recently saw a child about age 8 or 9 pretending to smoke one of those candy stick sweets saying to his friends "when I'm older I'm going to smoke just like my dad". Very sad to see and if I was closer I would have perhaps said something as he was with a group of friends. Kids learn by example so less people smoking means it will be less appealing to the younger generation. My son is 7 and already knows the risks and comments how awful it smells. CocoaClown

3:40pm Mon 10 Feb 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?
That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.
How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?[/p][/quote]That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.[/p][/quote]How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal? A.Baron-Cohen

3:43pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?
That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.
How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?
According to last year's NHS figures, 251. And according to the article for this year, 260.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?[/p][/quote]That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.[/p][/quote]How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?[/p][/quote]According to last year's NHS figures, 251. And according to the article for this year, 260. Hmmmf

3:51pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

stfcdod wrote:
Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped.

When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped.

To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht.


com

- MJM
Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it.
stf says, "Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it."

Stf, if I'd made that post to "promote my silly book" I would have linked it to Amazon rather than to a website that shares over 20,000 words of its information and arguments for free. After you've read those and commented on them, I'll be very happy to share many more free readings with you. Here, in case I don't get back and you're impatient for more, try http://TinyURL.com/S
mokingBanLies for another 7,000 words. Again, feel free to offer specific, substantive criticisms of its information. I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond.

Meanwhile I notice you didn't have a single substantive criticism to make about either the statements in my post OR the 20,000 words that you didn't have to buy.

House on the hill asks if I've considered the benefits of reduced smoking. Yes, I have. And, as the substance of my writings over the years has argued, the harms of the "holy crusade" outweigh those benefits.

Channel X, as you note, schoolchildren are now regularly taught that smoking is more dangerous than heroin and more addictive. Nice lesson, eh?

SwindonDad, as you point out, the magnification of "the evil of smoking" beyond all rational bounds raises some interesting questions. Stephanie Stahl's page at http://wispofsmoke.n
et/recovery.html suggests that it's actually a symptom of a psychological illness, ASDS, "AntiSmokers' Dysfunction Syndrome," and that people suffering from it not only suffer themselves but can deeply harm the lives of those around them.

- MJM
[quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped. When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped. To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht. com - MJM[/p][/quote]Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it.[/p][/quote]stf says, "Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it." Stf, if I'd made that post to "promote my silly book" I would have linked it to Amazon rather than to a website that shares over 20,000 words of its information and arguments for free. After you've read those and commented on them, I'll be very happy to share many more free readings with you. Here, in case I don't get back and you're impatient for more, try http://TinyURL.com/S mokingBanLies for another 7,000 words. Again, feel free to offer specific, substantive criticisms of its information. I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond. Meanwhile I notice you didn't have a single substantive criticism to make about either the statements in my post OR the 20,000 words that you didn't have to buy. House on the hill asks if I've considered the benefits of reduced smoking. Yes, I have. And, as the substance of my writings over the years has argued, the harms of the "holy crusade" outweigh those benefits. Channel X, as you note, schoolchildren are now regularly taught that smoking is more dangerous than heroin and more addictive. Nice lesson, eh? SwindonDad, as you point out, the magnification of "the evil of smoking" beyond all rational bounds raises some interesting questions. Stephanie Stahl's page at http://wispofsmoke.n et/recovery.html suggests that it's actually a symptom of a psychological illness, ASDS, "AntiSmokers' Dysfunction Syndrome," and that people suffering from it not only suffer themselves but can deeply harm the lives of those around them. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

3:57pm Mon 10 Feb 14

benzss says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
stfcdod wrote:
Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped.

When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped.

To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht.



com

- MJM
Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it.
stf says, "Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it."

Stf, if I'd made that post to "promote my silly book" I would have linked it to Amazon rather than to a website that shares over 20,000 words of its information and arguments for free. After you've read those and commented on them, I'll be very happy to share many more free readings with you. Here, in case I don't get back and you're impatient for more, try http://TinyURL.com/S

mokingBanLies for another 7,000 words. Again, feel free to offer specific, substantive criticisms of its information. I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond.

Meanwhile I notice you didn't have a single substantive criticism to make about either the statements in my post OR the 20,000 words that you didn't have to buy.

House on the hill asks if I've considered the benefits of reduced smoking. Yes, I have. And, as the substance of my writings over the years has argued, the harms of the "holy crusade" outweigh those benefits.

Channel X, as you note, schoolchildren are now regularly taught that smoking is more dangerous than heroin and more addictive. Nice lesson, eh?

SwindonDad, as you point out, the magnification of "the evil of smoking" beyond all rational bounds raises some interesting questions. Stephanie Stahl's page at http://wispofsmoke.n

et/recovery.html suggests that it's actually a symptom of a psychological illness, ASDS, "AntiSmokers' Dysfunction Syndrome," and that people suffering from it not only suffer themselves but can deeply harm the lives of those around them.

- MJM
Do you know Christopher Snowdon?
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped. When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped. To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht. com - MJM[/p][/quote]Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it.[/p][/quote]stf says, "Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it." Stf, if I'd made that post to "promote my silly book" I would have linked it to Amazon rather than to a website that shares over 20,000 words of its information and arguments for free. After you've read those and commented on them, I'll be very happy to share many more free readings with you. Here, in case I don't get back and you're impatient for more, try http://TinyURL.com/S mokingBanLies for another 7,000 words. Again, feel free to offer specific, substantive criticisms of its information. I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond. Meanwhile I notice you didn't have a single substantive criticism to make about either the statements in my post OR the 20,000 words that you didn't have to buy. House on the hill asks if I've considered the benefits of reduced smoking. Yes, I have. And, as the substance of my writings over the years has argued, the harms of the "holy crusade" outweigh those benefits. Channel X, as you note, schoolchildren are now regularly taught that smoking is more dangerous than heroin and more addictive. Nice lesson, eh? SwindonDad, as you point out, the magnification of "the evil of smoking" beyond all rational bounds raises some interesting questions. Stephanie Stahl's page at http://wispofsmoke.n et/recovery.html suggests that it's actually a symptom of a psychological illness, ASDS, "AntiSmokers' Dysfunction Syndrome," and that people suffering from it not only suffer themselves but can deeply harm the lives of those around them. - MJM[/p][/quote]Do you know Christopher Snowdon? benzss

4:01pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?
That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.
How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?
Nobody's death can be avoided, ever, no matter what bans and restrictions you put on people's choices whilst they're trying to live the one life they have.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?[/p][/quote]That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.[/p][/quote]How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?[/p][/quote]Nobody's death can be avoided, ever, no matter what bans and restrictions you put on people's choices whilst they're trying to live the one life they have. ChannelX

4:05pm Mon 10 Feb 14

benzss says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?
That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.
How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?
Does it matter?
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?[/p][/quote]That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.[/p][/quote]How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?[/p][/quote]Does it matter? benzss

4:05pm Mon 10 Feb 14

scottwichall says...

ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?
That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.
How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?
Nobody's death can be avoided, ever, no matter what bans and restrictions you put on people's choices whilst they're trying to live the one life they have.
Of course you can... you can follow the healthists advice and live on a diet of lentils and tofu, don't drink and don't smoke and exercise heavily whilst wearing spandex.

Oh, you must also wrap yourself in cotton wool and avoid anything remotely resembling fun.

You will then live forever, but be frightened of your own shadow.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?[/p][/quote]That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.[/p][/quote]How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?[/p][/quote]Nobody's death can be avoided, ever, no matter what bans and restrictions you put on people's choices whilst they're trying to live the one life they have.[/p][/quote]Of course you can... you can follow the healthists advice and live on a diet of lentils and tofu, don't drink and don't smoke and exercise heavily whilst wearing spandex. Oh, you must also wrap yourself in cotton wool and avoid anything remotely resembling fun. You will then live forever, but be frightened of your own shadow. scottwichall

4:05pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Of course there are things worse than smoking. Using that as an excuse for smoking is what I was getting at.
Why should anyone have to 'excuse' or justify their decision to smoke?

I've never smoked in my life, never felt the need, never saw the attraction and never started... but if others do want to smoke, good luck to them - why shouldn't they do it if it's what they feel like doing? How might me preventing them from doing something enhance my life in any way?

It's quite scary how many people seem to get a thrill out of trying to ban things that they themselves aren't concerned with but know that others do enjoy doing.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Of course there are things worse than smoking. Using that as an excuse for smoking is what I was getting at.[/p][/quote]Why should anyone have to 'excuse' or justify their decision to smoke? I've never smoked in my life, never felt the need, never saw the attraction and never started... but if others do want to smoke, good luck to them - why shouldn't they do it if it's what they feel like doing? How might me preventing them from doing something enhance my life in any way? It's quite scary how many people seem to get a thrill out of trying to ban things that they themselves aren't concerned with but know that others do enjoy doing. ChannelX

4:08pm Mon 10 Feb 14

scottwichall says...

ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Of course there are things worse than smoking. Using that as an excuse for smoking is what I was getting at.
Why should anyone have to 'excuse' or justify their decision to smoke?

I've never smoked in my life, never felt the need, never saw the attraction and never started... but if others do want to smoke, good luck to them - why shouldn't they do it if it's what they feel like doing? How might me preventing them from doing something enhance my life in any way?

It's quite scary how many people seem to get a thrill out of trying to ban things that they themselves aren't concerned with but know that others do enjoy doing.
It's because they are nasty little control freaks, they cannot stand the thought of someone else enjoying themselves whilst they sit there in grey misery.

A pox on all their houses.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Of course there are things worse than smoking. Using that as an excuse for smoking is what I was getting at.[/p][/quote]Why should anyone have to 'excuse' or justify their decision to smoke? I've never smoked in my life, never felt the need, never saw the attraction and never started... but if others do want to smoke, good luck to them - why shouldn't they do it if it's what they feel like doing? How might me preventing them from doing something enhance my life in any way? It's quite scary how many people seem to get a thrill out of trying to ban things that they themselves aren't concerned with but know that others do enjoy doing.[/p][/quote]It's because they are nasty little control freaks, they cannot stand the thought of someone else enjoying themselves whilst they sit there in grey misery. A pox on all their houses. scottwichall

4:17pm Mon 10 Feb 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?
That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.
How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?
Nobody's death can be avoided, ever, no matter what bans and restrictions you put on people's choices whilst they're trying to live the one life they have.
Then why ban other drugs which we know are far less dangerous?!?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?[/p][/quote]That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.[/p][/quote]How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?[/p][/quote]Nobody's death can be avoided, ever, no matter what bans and restrictions you put on people's choices whilst they're trying to live the one life they have.[/p][/quote]Then why ban other drugs which we know are far less dangerous?!? A.Baron-Cohen

4:19pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Benzz asked, "Do you know Christopher Snowdon?"

Yes I do! :) and I would **STRONGLY** recommend his "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist -- A History of Antismoking" to anyone interested in the historical roots of the antismoking campaigns! His book, coupled with my earlier "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains," gives an excellent historical, psychological, and scientific overview of the Free Choice position and resistance to those campaigns as well.

Chris's book is a bit more UK-centric, and mine a bit more US-centric, but both cover different aspects of the larger, global situation and both do a good job of scientific analysis.

- MJM
Benzz asked, "Do you know Christopher Snowdon?" Yes I do! :) and I would **STRONGLY** recommend his "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist -- A History of Antismoking" to anyone interested in the historical roots of the antismoking campaigns! His book, coupled with my earlier "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains," gives an excellent historical, psychological, and scientific overview of the Free Choice position and resistance to those campaigns as well. Chris's book is a bit more UK-centric, and mine a bit more US-centric, but both cover different aspects of the larger, global situation and both do a good job of scientific analysis. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

4:25pm Mon 10 Feb 14

scottwichall says...

I can also recommend Velvet Glove - Iron Fist. A very good read.
I can also recommend Velvet Glove - Iron Fist. A very good read. scottwichall

4:26pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Swindon itself was the home of another very active Free Choice fighter as well: Robert Feal Martinez, proprietor and VERY friendly host of The Carpenter's Arms. Robert fought the smoking ban for years, but has now, sadly, retired from The Arms and moved off to the coast with his equally wonderful wife, Barbara.

When I visited the UK a number of years ago to see some of the ban debate in Parliament and meet various activists over there I stayed at the Carpenter's Arms for a weekend and was completely charmed by what seemed the absolute picturebook essence of a English Inn!

:)
MJM
Swindon itself was the home of another very active Free Choice fighter as well: Robert Feal Martinez, proprietor and VERY friendly host of The Carpenter's Arms. Robert fought the smoking ban for years, but has now, sadly, retired from The Arms and moved off to the coast with his equally wonderful wife, Barbara. When I visited the UK a number of years ago to see some of the ban debate in Parliament and meet various activists over there I stayed at the Carpenter's Arms for a weekend and was completely charmed by what seemed the absolute picturebook essence of a English Inn! :) MJM Michael J. McFadden

4:31pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?
That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.
How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?
Nobody's death can be avoided, ever, no matter what bans and restrictions you put on people's choices whilst they're trying to live the one life they have.
Then why ban other drugs which we know are far less dangerous?!?
Good question, why DO we ban them?

(Clue: it has nothing at all to do with anyone's health)
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?[/p][/quote]That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.[/p][/quote]How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?[/p][/quote]Nobody's death can be avoided, ever, no matter what bans and restrictions you put on people's choices whilst they're trying to live the one life they have.[/p][/quote]Then why ban other drugs which we know are far less dangerous?!?[/p][/quote]Good question, why DO we ban them? (Clue: it has nothing at all to do with anyone's health) ChannelX

4:40pm Mon 10 Feb 14

benzss says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Benzz asked, "Do you know Christopher Snowdon?"

Yes I do! :) and I would **STRONGLY** recommend his "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist -- A History of Antismoking" to anyone interested in the historical roots of the antismoking campaigns! His book, coupled with my earlier "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains," gives an excellent historical, psychological, and scientific overview of the Free Choice position and resistance to those campaigns as well.

Chris's book is a bit more UK-centric, and mine a bit more US-centric, but both cover different aspects of the larger, global situation and both do a good job of scientific analysis.

- MJM
Yep, it's a good read, as is 'The Art of Suppression'.
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Benzz asked, "Do you know Christopher Snowdon?" Yes I do! :) and I would **STRONGLY** recommend his "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist -- A History of Antismoking" to anyone interested in the historical roots of the antismoking campaigns! His book, coupled with my earlier "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains," gives an excellent historical, psychological, and scientific overview of the Free Choice position and resistance to those campaigns as well. Chris's book is a bit more UK-centric, and mine a bit more US-centric, but both cover different aspects of the larger, global situation and both do a good job of scientific analysis. - MJM[/p][/quote]Yep, it's a good read, as is 'The Art of Suppression'. benzss

4:44pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Benzss, yes. While I think both are worthwhile in terms of their differing subject matters, I've always felt that VGIF is actually better written than my "Brains." (Heh, although I think at least parts of TobakkoNacht could give him a run for his money!)

:>
MJM
Benzss, yes. While I think both are worthwhile in terms of their differing subject matters, I've always felt that VGIF is actually better written than my "Brains." (Heh, although I think at least parts of TobakkoNacht could give him a run for his money!) :> MJM Michael J. McFadden

9:26pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Swindon itself was the home of another very active Free Choice fighter as well: Robert Feal Martinez, proprietor and VERY friendly host of The Carpenter's Arms. Robert fought the smoking ban for years, but has now, sadly, retired from The Arms and moved off to the coast with his equally wonderful wife, Barbara.

When I visited the UK a number of years ago to see some of the ban debate in Parliament and meet various activists over there I stayed at the Carpenter's Arms for a weekend and was completely charmed by what seemed the absolute picturebook essence of a English Inn!

:)
MJM
You're new here, aren't you? If I were you I wouldn't want to affiliate myself with "Robert Feal Martinez". His posts here have been the most bizarre you could imagine. He posts on and off here as "RichardR1" and incredibly thinks no-one knows it's him - it just makes him even more of a laughing stock than he was! - is that possible?
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Swindon itself was the home of another very active Free Choice fighter as well: Robert Feal Martinez, proprietor and VERY friendly host of The Carpenter's Arms. Robert fought the smoking ban for years, but has now, sadly, retired from The Arms and moved off to the coast with his equally wonderful wife, Barbara. When I visited the UK a number of years ago to see some of the ban debate in Parliament and meet various activists over there I stayed at the Carpenter's Arms for a weekend and was completely charmed by what seemed the absolute picturebook essence of a English Inn! :) MJM[/p][/quote]You're new here, aren't you? If I were you I wouldn't want to affiliate myself with "Robert Feal Martinez". His posts here have been the most bizarre you could imagine. He posts on and off here as "RichardR1" and incredibly thinks no-one knows it's him - it just makes him even more of a laughing stock than he was! - is that possible? Phantom Poster

9:31pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Phantom, I've not seen his posts here, so I can't comment on the substance of them, HOWEVER... as a nice person, and excellent inn host, and a friend, I stand by him in general.

And who are YOU btw?

- MJM
Phantom, I've not seen his posts here, so I can't comment on the substance of them, HOWEVER... as a nice person, and excellent inn host, and a friend, I stand by him in general. And who are YOU btw? - MJM Michael J. McFadden

9:35pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
stfcdod wrote:
Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped.

When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped.

To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht.



com

- MJM
Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it.
stf says, "Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it."

Stf, if I'd made that post to "promote my silly book" I would have linked it to Amazon rather than to a website that shares over 20,000 words of its information and arguments for free. After you've read those and commented on them, I'll be very happy to share many more free readings with you. Here, in case I don't get back and you're impatient for more, try http://TinyURL.com/S

mokingBanLies for another 7,000 words. Again, feel free to offer specific, substantive criticisms of its information. I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond.

Meanwhile I notice you didn't have a single substantive criticism to make about either the statements in my post OR the 20,000 words that you didn't have to buy.

House on the hill asks if I've considered the benefits of reduced smoking. Yes, I have. And, as the substance of my writings over the years has argued, the harms of the "holy crusade" outweigh those benefits.

Channel X, as you note, schoolchildren are now regularly taught that smoking is more dangerous than heroin and more addictive. Nice lesson, eh?

SwindonDad, as you point out, the magnification of "the evil of smoking" beyond all rational bounds raises some interesting questions. Stephanie Stahl's page at http://wispofsmoke.n

et/recovery.html suggests that it's actually a symptom of a psychological illness, ASDS, "AntiSmokers' Dysfunction Syndrome," and that people suffering from it not only suffer themselves but can deeply harm the lives of those around them.

- MJM
MJMcF said:
Stf, if I'd made that post to "promote my silly book" I would have linked it to Amazon rather than to a website that shares over 20,000 words of its information and arguments for free

If you had any sense then of course you wouldn't! You just don't want to look like a sycophant and so include an indirect link to your book - in the end you are blatantly promoting it.
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stfcdod[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped. When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped. To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht. com - MJM[/p][/quote]Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it.[/p][/quote]stf says, "Despite your attempt to promote your silly book on this website, I still won't be buying it." Stf, if I'd made that post to "promote my silly book" I would have linked it to Amazon rather than to a website that shares over 20,000 words of its information and arguments for free. After you've read those and commented on them, I'll be very happy to share many more free readings with you. Here, in case I don't get back and you're impatient for more, try http://TinyURL.com/S mokingBanLies for another 7,000 words. Again, feel free to offer specific, substantive criticisms of its information. I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond. Meanwhile I notice you didn't have a single substantive criticism to make about either the statements in my post OR the 20,000 words that you didn't have to buy. House on the hill asks if I've considered the benefits of reduced smoking. Yes, I have. And, as the substance of my writings over the years has argued, the harms of the "holy crusade" outweigh those benefits. Channel X, as you note, schoolchildren are now regularly taught that smoking is more dangerous than heroin and more addictive. Nice lesson, eh? SwindonDad, as you point out, the magnification of "the evil of smoking" beyond all rational bounds raises some interesting questions. Stephanie Stahl's page at http://wispofsmoke.n et/recovery.html suggests that it's actually a symptom of a psychological illness, ASDS, "AntiSmokers' Dysfunction Syndrome," and that people suffering from it not only suffer themselves but can deeply harm the lives of those around them. - MJM[/p][/quote]MJMcF said: Stf, if I'd made that post to "promote my silly book" I would have linked it to Amazon rather than to a website that shares over 20,000 words of its information and arguments for free If you had any sense then of course you wouldn't! You just don't want to look like a sycophant and so include an indirect link to your book - in the end you are blatantly promoting it. Phantom Poster

9:38pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Phantom, I've not seen his posts here, so I can't comment on the substance of them, HOWEVER... as a nice person, and excellent inn host, and a friend, I stand by him in general.

And who are YOU btw?

- MJM
I'm someone who is here with no need to promote a book.
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Phantom, I've not seen his posts here, so I can't comment on the substance of them, HOWEVER... as a nice person, and excellent inn host, and a friend, I stand by him in general. And who are YOU btw? - MJM[/p][/quote]I'm someone who is here with no need to promote a book. Phantom Poster

9:39pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Phantom, I've not seen his posts here, so I can't comment on the substance of them, HOWEVER... as a nice person, and excellent inn host, and a friend, I stand by him in general.

And who are YOU btw?

- MJM
By the way, I live in Swindon.
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Phantom, I've not seen his posts here, so I can't comment on the substance of them, HOWEVER... as a nice person, and excellent inn host, and a friend, I stand by him in general. And who are YOU btw? - MJM[/p][/quote]By the way, I live in Swindon. Phantom Poster

9:48pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Phantom, I've not seen his posts here, so I can't comment on the substance of them, HOWEVER... as a nice person, and excellent inn host, and a friend, I stand by him in general.

And who are YOU btw?

- MJM
I'm someone who is here with no need to promote a book.
"and excellent inn host,"

Quick update - in 21st century UK we don't generally frequent "olde worlde inns"! If you agreed with RichardR1's extreme UKIP policies then I'm sure that you were the very best of pals!
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Phantom, I've not seen his posts here, so I can't comment on the substance of them, HOWEVER... as a nice person, and excellent inn host, and a friend, I stand by him in general. And who are YOU btw? - MJM[/p][/quote]I'm someone who is here with no need to promote a book.[/p][/quote]"and excellent inn host," Quick update - in 21st century UK we don't generally frequent "olde worlde inns"! If you agreed with RichardR1's extreme UKIP policies then I'm sure that you were the very best of pals! Phantom Poster

9:52pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

I see. An anonymous internet poster who claims to live in Swindon who enjoys criticizing two actually "real" people without offering anything of specific substance to his criticisms.

LOL! You're a classic Netizen PP! Live in a basement perhaps?

While I realize it might be difficult for you to find something of substance in the way of criticism or argument to make, I think you'll find that people accord you with a bit more respect, even as an anonymous graffiti artist.

- MJM
I see. An anonymous internet poster who claims to live in Swindon who enjoys criticizing two actually "real" people without offering anything of specific substance to his criticisms. LOL! You're a classic Netizen PP! Live in a basement perhaps? While I realize it might be difficult for you to find something of substance in the way of criticism or argument to make, I think you'll find that people accord you with a bit more respect, even as an anonymous graffiti artist. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

9:55pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Hmmmmf.... sorry, missed seeing your post earlier somehow! :/ Heh, no idea if it would sell, but it certainly hits the nail more firmly on the head than most of the stuff from the Antis.

- MJM
Hmmmmf.... sorry, missed seeing your post earlier somehow! :/ Heh, no idea if it would sell, but it certainly hits the nail more firmly on the head than most of the stuff from the Antis. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

10:23pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
I see. An anonymous internet poster who claims to live in Swindon who enjoys criticizing two actually "real" people without offering anything of specific substance to his criticisms.

LOL! You're a classic Netizen PP! Live in a basement perhaps?

While I realize it might be difficult for you to find something of substance in the way of criticism or argument to make, I think you'll find that people accord you with a bit more respect, even as an anonymous graffiti artist.

- MJM
Make any comment you want and we can enter into a debate. Why do you think that if you know my address and phone number that my comments will be any more valid? This comments page respects anonymity, so who are you to post here and complain about the conditions?
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: I see. An anonymous internet poster who claims to live in Swindon who enjoys criticizing two actually "real" people without offering anything of specific substance to his criticisms. LOL! You're a classic Netizen PP! Live in a basement perhaps? While I realize it might be difficult for you to find something of substance in the way of criticism or argument to make, I think you'll find that people accord you with a bit more respect, even as an anonymous graffiti artist. - MJM[/p][/quote]Make any comment you want and we can enter into a debate. Why do you think that if you know my address and phone number that my comments will be any more valid? This comments page respects anonymity, so who are you to post here and complain about the conditions? Phantom Poster

10:26pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Michael J. McFadden wrote:
I see. An anonymous internet poster who claims to live in Swindon who enjoys criticizing two actually "real" people without offering anything of specific substance to his criticisms.

LOL! You're a classic Netizen PP! Live in a basement perhaps?

While I realize it might be difficult for you to find something of substance in the way of criticism or argument to make, I think you'll find that people accord you with a bit more respect, even as an anonymous graffiti artist.

- MJM
Make any comment you want and we can enter into a debate. Why do you think that if you know my address and phone number that my comments will be any more valid? This comments page respects anonymity, so who are you to post here and complain about the conditions?
By the way, nerds living in basements is a US phenomenon, we don't generally have basements in the UK. You're a bit out of your depth, aren't you?
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: I see. An anonymous internet poster who claims to live in Swindon who enjoys criticizing two actually "real" people without offering anything of specific substance to his criticisms. LOL! You're a classic Netizen PP! Live in a basement perhaps? While I realize it might be difficult for you to find something of substance in the way of criticism or argument to make, I think you'll find that people accord you with a bit more respect, even as an anonymous graffiti artist. - MJM[/p][/quote]Make any comment you want and we can enter into a debate. Why do you think that if you know my address and phone number that my comments will be any more valid? This comments page respects anonymity, so who are you to post here and complain about the conditions?[/p][/quote]By the way, nerds living in basements is a US phenomenon, we don't generally have basements in the UK. You're a bit out of your depth, aren't you? Phantom Poster

10:40pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Michael J. McFadden wrote:
I see. An anonymous internet poster who claims to live in Swindon who enjoys criticizing two actually "real" people without offering anything of specific substance to his criticisms.

LOL! You're a classic Netizen PP! Live in a basement perhaps?

While I realize it might be difficult for you to find something of substance in the way of criticism or argument to make, I think you'll find that people accord you with a bit more respect, even as an anonymous graffiti artist.

- MJM
Make any comment you want and we can enter into a debate. Why do you think that if you know my address and phone number that my comments will be any more valid? This comments page respects anonymity, so who are you to post here and complain about the conditions?
Michael J. McFadden says...
"I see. An anonymous internet poster who claims to live in Swindon"

Like to have a competition on Swindon knowledge? Who do you think would win?
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: I see. An anonymous internet poster who claims to live in Swindon who enjoys criticizing two actually "real" people without offering anything of specific substance to his criticisms. LOL! You're a classic Netizen PP! Live in a basement perhaps? While I realize it might be difficult for you to find something of substance in the way of criticism or argument to make, I think you'll find that people accord you with a bit more respect, even as an anonymous graffiti artist. - MJM[/p][/quote]Make any comment you want and we can enter into a debate. Why do you think that if you know my address and phone number that my comments will be any more valid? This comments page respects anonymity, so who are you to post here and complain about the conditions?[/p][/quote]Michael J. McFadden says... "I see. An anonymous internet poster who claims to live in Swindon" Like to have a competition on Swindon knowledge? Who do you think would win? Phantom Poster

10:46pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

PP, since I have no idea who are where you are, you might be perching in a stork's nest in Holland for all I know.

Generally, I believe it's more polite to refer readers to a link rather than make extensive posts that overburden the web-host and seem to get quoted in full too often by readers who reply. But, since you seem to prefer, I'll post a slightly abbreviated portion of the Preface here for you to read.

===

Mike Godwin noted “As Net discussions grow longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis approaches Unity.” Those hauling Nazis into online debates are said to have broken “Godwin’s Law,” losing the argument by leaving rational discussion.
Such a reaction is generally correct. The Holocaust is not alone in the horrors of human history, but the use of its imagery in flippant compari¬sons should not be treated lightly. Few alive today have had any life experiences approaching the horror of those persecuted under Hitler.
Despite that, I chose a title recalling the hallmark event in the open persecution of German Jewry: Kristallnacht, The Night of Broken Glass. I chose that title not to imply that smokers are about to be starved, tortured, and incinerated in camps, but to emphasize that what is being done to smokers today is truly not so different from what was done to Germany's Jews in the very earliest presages of the Holocaust, a period when virtually no one, either in Germany or elsewhere, imagined what was to come.
There was one thing, throughout all my college and graduate years of focus on Peace Studies and Peace Research, that I could never understand: How could the “Good” Germans have allowed the Holocaust to come about? Why didn't they stand up at the beginning, when the first insults to human decency and incursions upon respect and liberty began to grow? What went through their minds as they saw their Jewish friends and neighbors vilified and made the butt of editorial cartoons and nasty jokes, being banned from clubs, denied jobs or medical care, or being told they spread disease and couldn’t live near Gentile friends and neighbors? What restrained them from coming to the aid of their friends before such action meant risking a Gestapo bullet?
That was something I couldn’t comprehend: the beginning of it all. But now I do. Even though I do not believe the “War On Smokers” will ever extend much beyond personal animosity and economic, housing, and medical persecution, I have been horrified to see the widespread acceptance of the growth of such persecution by a generation known for screaming high holy hell against any and all behavioral control by authority -- the hippies who believed virtually all non-violent behavior should be accepted as each free person did his or her “own thing.”
I have seen the sea-change in attitude over the past thirty years and I have seen how reluctant people are to stand up to authority if it dons the robes of acting in the public interest, or for the children, or even just to save tax money.
I have seen people radically alter their views of reality, not because of any rational argument, but purely because they have been hit, over and over again, with sound bite philoso¬phies that become accepted without question upon the thousandth repetition.
I have seen people treat and accept treatment of friends and family in ways that would have been unimaginable in the 1970s: tossing visiting grandparents onto snow-covered porches, evicting elderly patients from long-term care facilities, rudely accosting total strangers who are engaging in “misbeha¬vior” a dozen yards away in the open air, even teaching their children to regard certain sorts of folks as “dirty,” while training them to make nasty faces and fake coughing sounds upon seeing such folks.
I have seen the majority of the population welcome extortionate taxation of a minority simply because they’ve been given a good excuse to vote for taxing someone else without guilt.
I have seen people tossed out of homes they had lived in for years simply for refusing to change their lifestyles to accord with a new fiat regarding their perfectly legal behavior, and I have even seen people threatened with the denial of needed medical care unless they agreed to adopt the current medical ideals pledge their allegiance.
I've seen all that, and finally, many years after my university studies, I have begun to understand just how subtly hate can be built up against a minority with almost no one objecting, and almost no one believing how far such hate can go as it develops step by step.
That is why, despite Godwin's Law, this book rings back to the memories of the early oppression of minorities in Hitler’s Germany. There really should be no need to fantasize about the future of such things; present-day reality should be more than enough to wake people up.

But it hasn't.
===

If you'd like the rest, and if no one objects, I'm happy to post it here for your comment.

- MJM
PP, since I have no idea who are where you are, you might be perching in a stork's nest in Holland for all I know. Generally, I believe it's more polite to refer readers to a link rather than make extensive posts that overburden the web-host and seem to get quoted in full too often by readers who reply. But, since you seem to prefer, I'll post a slightly abbreviated portion of the Preface here for you to read. === Mike Godwin noted “As Net discussions grow longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis approaches Unity.” Those hauling Nazis into online debates are said to have broken “Godwin’s Law,” losing the argument by leaving rational discussion. Such a reaction is generally correct. The Holocaust is not alone in the horrors of human history, but the use of its imagery in flippant compari¬sons should not be treated lightly. Few alive today have had any life experiences approaching the horror of those persecuted under Hitler. Despite that, I chose a title recalling the hallmark event in the open persecution of German Jewry: Kristallnacht, The Night of Broken Glass. I chose that title not to imply that smokers are about to be starved, tortured, and incinerated in camps, but to emphasize that what is being done to smokers today is truly not so different from what was done to Germany's Jews in the very earliest presages of the Holocaust, a period when virtually no one, either in Germany or elsewhere, imagined what was to come. There was one thing, throughout all my college and graduate years of focus on Peace Studies and Peace Research, that I could never understand: How could the “Good” Germans have allowed the Holocaust to come about? Why didn't they stand up at the beginning, when the first insults to human decency and incursions upon respect and liberty began to grow? What went through their minds as they saw their Jewish friends and neighbors vilified and made the butt of editorial cartoons and nasty jokes, being banned from clubs, denied jobs or medical care, or being told they spread disease and couldn’t live near Gentile friends and neighbors? What restrained them from coming to the aid of their friends before such action meant risking a Gestapo bullet? That was something I couldn’t comprehend: the beginning of it all. But now I do. Even though I do not believe the “War On Smokers” will ever extend much beyond personal animosity and economic, housing, and medical persecution, I have been horrified to see the widespread acceptance of the growth of such persecution by a generation known for screaming high holy hell against any and all behavioral control by authority -- the hippies who believed virtually all non-violent behavior should be accepted as each free person did his or her “own thing.” I have seen the sea-change in attitude over the past thirty years and I have seen how reluctant people are to stand up to authority if it dons the robes of acting in the public interest, or for the children, or even just to save tax money. I have seen people radically alter their views of reality, not because of any rational argument, but purely because they have been hit, over and over again, with sound bite philoso¬phies that become accepted without question upon the thousandth repetition. I have seen people treat and accept treatment of friends and family in ways that would have been unimaginable in the 1970s: tossing visiting grandparents onto snow-covered porches, evicting elderly patients from long-term care facilities, rudely accosting total strangers who are engaging in “misbeha¬vior” a dozen yards away in the open air, even teaching their children to regard certain sorts of folks as “dirty,” while training them to make nasty faces and fake coughing sounds upon seeing such folks. I have seen the majority of the population welcome extortionate taxation of a minority simply because they’ve been given a good excuse to vote for taxing someone else without guilt. I have seen people tossed out of homes they had lived in for years simply for refusing to change their lifestyles to accord with a new fiat regarding their perfectly legal behavior, and I have even seen people threatened with the denial of needed medical care unless they agreed to adopt the current medical ideals pledge their allegiance. I've seen all that, and finally, many years after my university studies, I have begun to understand just how subtly hate can be built up against a minority with almost no one objecting, and almost no one believing how far such hate can go as it develops step by step. That is why, despite Godwin's Law, this book rings back to the memories of the early oppression of minorities in Hitler’s Germany. There really should be no need to fantasize about the future of such things; present-day reality should be more than enough to wake people up. But it hasn't. === If you'd like the rest, and if no one objects, I'm happy to post it here for your comment. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

10:49pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

PP wrote, "Like to have a competition on Swindon knowledge? Who do you think would win?"

Since my knowledge of Swindon involves little more than a stretch of highway and an inn, I'm sure I'd lose that particular contest to a lot of people.

- MJM
PP wrote, "Like to have a competition on Swindon knowledge? Who do you think would win?" Since my knowledge of Swindon involves little more than a stretch of highway and an inn, I'm sure I'd lose that particular contest to a lot of people. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

10:50pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

However, I can't really defend Swindon: http://tinyurl.com/3
yorgt9
However, I can't really defend Swindon: http://tinyurl.com/3 yorgt9 Phantom Poster

2:02am Tue 11 Feb 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

2:03am Tue 11 Feb 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.

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.
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. 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

2:04am Tue 11 Feb 14

harleyrider1777 says...

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!
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

2:05am Tue 11 Feb 14

harleyrider1777 says...

They have LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING with their smoking related JUNK SCIENCE!
They have LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING with their smoking related JUNK SCIENCE! harleyrider1777

2:24am Tue 11 Feb 14

harleyrider1777 says...

The fact that no harm can be shown to anyone exposed to second hand smoke!

The fact that 20 year and more heavy smokers lungs are just as good if not better than non-smokers lungs in transplant operations with better survival rates! Destroying the myth of second hand smoke based on thousands of years to get equal doseage in non-smokers!

The fact that second hand smoke in the homes of children reduce and leave a protective effect on both smokers and children to atopic disorders by a whopping 84%.

The fact that even OSHA couldn't find any levels of harm to anyone inside a smoking establishment!

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.

Really the governments Mystical crystal ball theyve been looking into has lied to you and everyone else.

Perhaps your now a believer of thirdhand smoke and its magical properties to kill children!

Or maybe its just that your a Prohibitionist that simply hates smokers and the Obese and well drinkers too.

Or maybe you hate freedom and property rights of the owners of private businesses.

Or maybe just maybe your out to destroy the parental autonomy of parents in likely another push to ban smoking in cars or even in our homes!

Maybe you also want to ban smoking in the parks or the shoreline of kentuckys rivers and lakes.

But mostly the Government is it that your getting great campaign donations from the likes of Big Pharma and government grants to the sock puppets to push the lies and push the bills illegal lobbying put in your hands by non-profit groups backed by Pharma activists.

Or could it be your small PR firm in Louisville is making money pushing this hype and propaganda for the smokefree activists too!

Truly the government has plenty of provocation and cash incentives to push this anti-freedom prohibitionist Bill!

Come Clean GOVERNMENT you owe it to the public! Admit who has been pushing you to push these smoking bans!
The fact that no harm can be shown to anyone exposed to second hand smoke! The fact that 20 year and more heavy smokers lungs are just as good if not better than non-smokers lungs in transplant operations with better survival rates! Destroying the myth of second hand smoke based on thousands of years to get equal doseage in non-smokers! The fact that second hand smoke in the homes of children reduce and leave a protective effect on both smokers and children to atopic disorders by a whopping 84%. The fact that even OSHA couldn't find any levels of harm to anyone inside a smoking establishment! 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. Really the governments Mystical crystal ball theyve been looking into has lied to you and everyone else. Perhaps your now a believer of thirdhand smoke and its magical properties to kill children! Or maybe its just that your a Prohibitionist that simply hates smokers and the Obese and well drinkers too. Or maybe you hate freedom and property rights of the owners of private businesses. Or maybe just maybe your out to destroy the parental autonomy of parents in likely another push to ban smoking in cars or even in our homes! Maybe you also want to ban smoking in the parks or the shoreline of kentuckys rivers and lakes. But mostly the Government is it that your getting great campaign donations from the likes of Big Pharma and government grants to the sock puppets to push the lies and push the bills illegal lobbying put in your hands by non-profit groups backed by Pharma activists. Or could it be your small PR firm in Louisville is making money pushing this hype and propaganda for the smokefree activists too! Truly the government has plenty of provocation and cash incentives to push this anti-freedom prohibitionist Bill! Come Clean GOVERNMENT you owe it to the public! Admit who has been pushing you to push these smoking bans! harleyrider1777

8:19am Tue 11 Feb 14

semitonic says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Swindon itself was the home of another very active Free Choice fighter as well: Robert Feal Martinez, proprietor and VERY friendly host of The Carpenter's Arms. Robert fought the smoking ban for years, but has now, sadly, retired from The Arms and moved off to the coast with his equally wonderful wife, Barbara.

When I visited the UK a number of years ago to see some of the ban debate in Parliament and meet various activists over there I stayed at the Carpenter's Arms for a weekend and was completely charmed by what seemed the absolute picturebook essence of a English Inn!

:)
MJM
You're new here, aren't you? If I were you I wouldn't want to affiliate myself with "Robert Feal Martinez". His posts here have been the most bizarre you could imagine. He posts on and off here as "RichardR1" and incredibly thinks no-one knows it's him - it just makes him even more of a laughing stock than he was! - is that possible?
Robbo's posts were irreproachable, resulting in some of the funniest, clownish, crackpot episodes ever to grace the 'tizer's comment section. And now he wants us to forget about all that.

Fond memories.

Whatever happened to itsamess, and Gordon Chalmers?
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Swindon itself was the home of another very active Free Choice fighter as well: Robert Feal Martinez, proprietor and VERY friendly host of The Carpenter's Arms. Robert fought the smoking ban for years, but has now, sadly, retired from The Arms and moved off to the coast with his equally wonderful wife, Barbara. When I visited the UK a number of years ago to see some of the ban debate in Parliament and meet various activists over there I stayed at the Carpenter's Arms for a weekend and was completely charmed by what seemed the absolute picturebook essence of a English Inn! :) MJM[/p][/quote]You're new here, aren't you? If I were you I wouldn't want to affiliate myself with "Robert Feal Martinez". His posts here have been the most bizarre you could imagine. He posts on and off here as "RichardR1" and incredibly thinks no-one knows it's him - it just makes him even more of a laughing stock than he was! - is that possible?[/p][/quote]Robbo's posts were irreproachable, resulting in some of the funniest, clownish, crackpot episodes ever to grace the 'tizer's comment section. And now he wants us to forget about all that. Fond memories. Whatever happened to itsamess, and Gordon Chalmers? semitonic

9:27am Tue 11 Feb 14

EmmBee says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
PP, since I have no idea who are where you are, you might be perching in a stork's nest in Holland for all I know.

Generally, I believe it's more polite to refer readers to a link rather than make extensive posts that overburden the web-host and seem to get quoted in full too often by readers who reply. But, since you seem to prefer, I'll post a slightly abbreviated portion of the Preface here for you to read.

===

Mike Godwin noted “As Net discussions grow longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis approaches Unity.” Those hauling Nazis into online debates are said to have broken “Godwin’s Law,” losing the argument by leaving rational discussion.
Such a reaction is generally correct. The Holocaust is not alone in the horrors of human history, but the use of its imagery in flippant compari¬sons should not be treated lightly. Few alive today have had any life experiences approaching the horror of those persecuted under Hitler.
Despite that, I chose a title recalling the hallmark event in the open persecution of German Jewry: Kristallnacht, The Night of Broken Glass. I chose that title not to imply that smokers are about to be starved, tortured, and incinerated in camps, but to emphasize that what is being done to smokers today is truly not so different from what was done to Germany's Jews in the very earliest presages of the Holocaust, a period when virtually no one, either in Germany or elsewhere, imagined what was to come.
There was one thing, throughout all my college and graduate years of focus on Peace Studies and Peace Research, that I could never understand: How could the “Good” Germans have allowed the Holocaust to come about? Why didn't they stand up at the beginning, when the first insults to human decency and incursions upon respect and liberty began to grow? What went through their minds as they saw their Jewish friends and neighbors vilified and made the butt of editorial cartoons and nasty jokes, being banned from clubs, denied jobs or medical care, or being told they spread disease and couldn’t live near Gentile friends and neighbors? What restrained them from coming to the aid of their friends before such action meant risking a Gestapo bullet?
That was something I couldn’t comprehend: the beginning of it all. But now I do. Even though I do not believe the “War On Smokers” will ever extend much beyond personal animosity and economic, housing, and medical persecution, I have been horrified to see the widespread acceptance of the growth of such persecution by a generation known for screaming high holy hell against any and all behavioral control by authority -- the hippies who believed virtually all non-violent behavior should be accepted as each free person did his or her “own thing.”
I have seen the sea-change in attitude over the past thirty years and I have seen how reluctant people are to stand up to authority if it dons the robes of acting in the public interest, or for the children, or even just to save tax money.
I have seen people radically alter their views of reality, not because of any rational argument, but purely because they have been hit, over and over again, with sound bite philoso¬phies that become accepted without question upon the thousandth repetition.
I have seen people treat and accept treatment of friends and family in ways that would have been unimaginable in the 1970s: tossing visiting grandparents onto snow-covered porches, evicting elderly patients from long-term care facilities, rudely accosting total strangers who are engaging in “misbeha¬vior” a dozen yards away in the open air, even teaching their children to regard certain sorts of folks as “dirty,” while training them to make nasty faces and fake coughing sounds upon seeing such folks.
I have seen the majority of the population welcome extortionate taxation of a minority simply because they’ve been given a good excuse to vote for taxing someone else without guilt.
I have seen people tossed out of homes they had lived in for years simply for refusing to change their lifestyles to accord with a new fiat regarding their perfectly legal behavior, and I have even seen people threatened with the denial of needed medical care unless they agreed to adopt the current medical ideals pledge their allegiance.
I've seen all that, and finally, many years after my university studies, I have begun to understand just how subtly hate can be built up against a minority with almost no one objecting, and almost no one believing how far such hate can go as it develops step by step.
That is why, despite Godwin's Law, this book rings back to the memories of the early oppression of minorities in Hitler’s Germany. There really should be no need to fantasize about the future of such things; present-day reality should be more than enough to wake people up.

But it hasn't.
===

If you'd like the rest, and if no one objects, I'm happy to post it here for your comment.

- MJM
TL; DR.
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: PP, since I have no idea who are where you are, you might be perching in a stork's nest in Holland for all I know. Generally, I believe it's more polite to refer readers to a link rather than make extensive posts that overburden the web-host and seem to get quoted in full too often by readers who reply. But, since you seem to prefer, I'll post a slightly abbreviated portion of the Preface here for you to read. === Mike Godwin noted “As Net discussions grow longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis approaches Unity.” Those hauling Nazis into online debates are said to have broken “Godwin’s Law,” losing the argument by leaving rational discussion. Such a reaction is generally correct. The Holocaust is not alone in the horrors of human history, but the use of its imagery in flippant compari¬sons should not be treated lightly. Few alive today have had any life experiences approaching the horror of those persecuted under Hitler. Despite that, I chose a title recalling the hallmark event in the open persecution of German Jewry: Kristallnacht, The Night of Broken Glass. I chose that title not to imply that smokers are about to be starved, tortured, and incinerated in camps, but to emphasize that what is being done to smokers today is truly not so different from what was done to Germany's Jews in the very earliest presages of the Holocaust, a period when virtually no one, either in Germany or elsewhere, imagined what was to come. There was one thing, throughout all my college and graduate years of focus on Peace Studies and Peace Research, that I could never understand: How could the “Good” Germans have allowed the Holocaust to come about? Why didn't they stand up at the beginning, when the first insults to human decency and incursions upon respect and liberty began to grow? What went through their minds as they saw their Jewish friends and neighbors vilified and made the butt of editorial cartoons and nasty jokes, being banned from clubs, denied jobs or medical care, or being told they spread disease and couldn’t live near Gentile friends and neighbors? What restrained them from coming to the aid of their friends before such action meant risking a Gestapo bullet? That was something I couldn’t comprehend: the beginning of it all. But now I do. Even though I do not believe the “War On Smokers” will ever extend much beyond personal animosity and economic, housing, and medical persecution, I have been horrified to see the widespread acceptance of the growth of such persecution by a generation known for screaming high holy hell against any and all behavioral control by authority -- the hippies who believed virtually all non-violent behavior should be accepted as each free person did his or her “own thing.” I have seen the sea-change in attitude over the past thirty years and I have seen how reluctant people are to stand up to authority if it dons the robes of acting in the public interest, or for the children, or even just to save tax money. I have seen people radically alter their views of reality, not because of any rational argument, but purely because they have been hit, over and over again, with sound bite philoso¬phies that become accepted without question upon the thousandth repetition. I have seen people treat and accept treatment of friends and family in ways that would have been unimaginable in the 1970s: tossing visiting grandparents onto snow-covered porches, evicting elderly patients from long-term care facilities, rudely accosting total strangers who are engaging in “misbeha¬vior” a dozen yards away in the open air, even teaching their children to regard certain sorts of folks as “dirty,” while training them to make nasty faces and fake coughing sounds upon seeing such folks. I have seen the majority of the population welcome extortionate taxation of a minority simply because they’ve been given a good excuse to vote for taxing someone else without guilt. I have seen people tossed out of homes they had lived in for years simply for refusing to change their lifestyles to accord with a new fiat regarding their perfectly legal behavior, and I have even seen people threatened with the denial of needed medical care unless they agreed to adopt the current medical ideals pledge their allegiance. I've seen all that, and finally, many years after my university studies, I have begun to understand just how subtly hate can be built up against a minority with almost no one objecting, and almost no one believing how far such hate can go as it develops step by step. That is why, despite Godwin's Law, this book rings back to the memories of the early oppression of minorities in Hitler’s Germany. There really should be no need to fantasize about the future of such things; present-day reality should be more than enough to wake people up. But it hasn't. === If you'd like the rest, and if no one objects, I'm happy to post it here for your comment. - MJM[/p][/quote]TL; DR. EmmBee

9:40am Tue 11 Feb 14

scottwichall says...

@EmmBee TLDR says it all. You cannot be bothered. Carry on watching X-Factor why don't you.
@EmmBee TLDR says it all. You cannot be bothered. Carry on watching X-Factor why don't you. scottwichall

12:02pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

" TLDR says it all. You cannot be bothered. "

I fully agree with both Emm and Scott -- which is why I do NOT simply post such things on message boards and instead just note that an argument or position has been laid out at one of my sites. PPhantom, stfcdod, et al seem to want it laid out here and object being referred to a site to read it, so I provided a single post as an example.

Soooo... don' blame *me* Emm 'n Scott: I'se jes' givin' 'em whut th'y assed fer. Now we'll see if they actually have some comments on it.

- MJM
" TLDR says it all. You cannot be bothered. " I fully agree with both Emm and Scott -- which is why I do NOT simply post such things on message boards and instead just note that an argument or position has been laid out at one of my sites. PPhantom, stfcdod, et al seem to want it laid out here and object being referred to a site to read it, so I provided a single post as an example. Soooo... don' blame *me* Emm 'n Scott: I'se jes' givin' 'em whut th'y assed fer. Now we'll see if they actually have some comments on it. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

12:10pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

{Scott, yes, I realize you weren't blaming me there... but I've always felt that the "Too Long, Didn't Read" position is a very justified stance for people to take on these message boards. Antismoking lies can be exposed pretty quickly and easily for anyone with a mind open enough to think about them for more than a few seconds after being shown the peekholes through the doorways, and those who want more will certainly be open to clicking on a few websites or reading a pamphlet or book or two. When they're reading the comments sections it's usually for one of two reasons:

1) To see if anyone has any intelligent points to make in disagreement with the main article (or additions to it)

or

2) To see a bit of the back and forth fight between people on two sides of the issue to see who makes the better points and backs them up.

People who want to be preached at go to church or just read articles and books that agree with their beliefs. That's not what people go to these comments for.

- MJM
{Scott, yes, I realize you weren't blaming me there... but I've always felt that the "Too Long, Didn't Read" position is a very justified stance for people to take on these message boards. Antismoking lies can be exposed pretty quickly and easily for anyone with a mind open enough to think about them for more than a few seconds after being shown the peekholes through the doorways, and those who want more will certainly be open to clicking on a few websites or reading a pamphlet or book or two. When they're reading the comments sections it's usually for one of two reasons: 1) To see if anyone has any intelligent points to make in disagreement with the main article (or additions to it) or 2) To see a bit of the back and forth fight between people on two sides of the issue to see who makes the better points and backs them up. People who want to be preached at go to church or just read articles and books that agree with their beliefs. That's not what people go to these comments for. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

12:49pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

MJM why do you care where I live? Your point is?

No one asked to see the preface of your book and yet you chose to inflict it upon us - can you think of any parallels with smokers?

I am utterly apalled that you try to draw parallels with the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany and the treatment of smokers today. Oh yes, having your entire family killed in a gas chamber is nothing compared with being denied the right to blow smoke in peoples faces. As in the article you will now try and back pedal - but that's too late and quite pathetic after the comparison has been made.

You do realise that no one is stopping anyone from smoking? Just don't do it where others are not given the choice to avoid breathing it in. Whether or not you think it's harmless is irrelevant. The biggest enemy of the smoker is fanatics such as you.
MJM why do you care where I live? Your point is? No one asked to see the preface of your book and yet you chose to inflict it upon us - can you think of any parallels with smokers? I am utterly apalled that you try to draw parallels with the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany and the treatment of smokers today. Oh yes, having your entire family killed in a gas chamber is nothing compared with being denied the right to blow smoke in peoples faces. As in the article you will now try and back pedal - but that's too late and quite pathetic after the comparison has been made. You do realise that no one is stopping anyone from smoking? Just don't do it where others are not given the choice to avoid breathing it in. Whether or not you think it's harmless is irrelevant. The biggest enemy of the smoker is fanatics such as you. Phantom Poster

2:00pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

PP, you don't read very well, do you? I believe I made myself fairly clear in that excerpt. In terms of no one asking to see it, you'll note that I was strongly faulted for pointing people to the site where they could read it, which then leaves little avenue for anyone to read it without availing myself of the alternative: printing it here. Of course, "no one's stopping me from sharing it in some other way" I guess you'd say... but would you elaborate on what way that would be? Particularly since you yourself said to me, "Make any comment you want and we can enter into a debate."

As to no one being stopped from smoking, what do you have to say about the number of companies that will now fire anyone who smokes even at home? Or the apartment complexes that will, by government rule, throw smokers out into the cold if they dare to smoke in their own apartments? Or perhaps you have some insightful comments about doctors who refuse to treat patients who smoke?

Would you like to read the rest of the Preface PP? Or maybe you'd like something different to debate as per your suggestion? Let's try the site reference again though, since this is a bit longer than the Preface:

http://TheTruthIsALi
e.com

- MJM
PP, you don't read very well, do you? I believe I made myself fairly clear in that excerpt. In terms of no one asking to see it, you'll note that I was strongly faulted for pointing people to the site where they could read it, which then leaves little avenue for anyone to read it without availing myself of the alternative: printing it here. Of course, "no one's stopping me from sharing it in some other way" I guess you'd say... but would you elaborate on what way that would be? Particularly since you yourself said to me, "Make any comment you want and we can enter into a debate." As to no one being stopped from smoking, what do you have to say about the number of companies that will now fire anyone who smokes even at home? Or the apartment complexes that will, by government rule, throw smokers out into the cold if they dare to smoke in their own apartments? Or perhaps you have some insightful comments about doctors who refuse to treat patients who smoke? Would you like to read the rest of the Preface PP? Or maybe you'd like something different to debate as per your suggestion? Let's try the site reference again though, since this is a bit longer than the Preface: http://TheTruthIsALi e.com - MJM Michael J. McFadden

2:09pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Sorry I have neither the time nor inclination to read long reams of text about smoking - I'm afraid that your Nazi analogy has lost you any credibility.

So let's leave it short and concise - name a UK company who has sacked an employee for smoking at home.
Sorry I have neither the time nor inclination to read long reams of text about smoking - I'm afraid that your Nazi analogy has lost you any credibility. So let's leave it short and concise - name a UK company who has sacked an employee for smoking at home. Phantom Poster

2:23pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

By the way, exclude any company which operates a clean room area - as they have genuine reasons
By the way, exclude any company which operates a clean room area - as they have genuine reasons Phantom Poster

2:32pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

PP, you didn't show any inclination to read shorter reams of text earlier, so I don't feel that's a great loss. Your reading limitations are rather difficult to deal with: too long, too short, there, or here.... Would it help if I wrote in Outer Mongolian? Hmm.... mayhaps THAT is where you live!

Are we limited to discrimination only in the UK now? In case you never picked up on it, I'm in the US. Perhaps you have a friend who could read the "About The Author" page to you?

- MJM
PP, you didn't show any inclination to read shorter reams of text earlier, so I don't feel that's a great loss. Your reading limitations are rather difficult to deal with: too long, too short, there, or here.... Would it help if I wrote in Outer Mongolian? Hmm.... mayhaps THAT is where you live! Are we limited to discrimination only in the UK now? In case you never picked up on it, I'm in the US. Perhaps you have a friend who could read the "About The Author" page to you? - MJM Michael J. McFadden

2:46pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

PP, btw, if you don't care for long reams of text, I'd definitely advise against your attempting to read TobakkoNacht. It's a little over 175,000 words and has over 400 citations for you to look up for verification.

You *might* be able to deal with my much shorter and freely available "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" however. That's basically a short, big-print, easy-reading pamphlet sort of thing designed for quick reading by distracted people in dimly lit bars. It was written specifically so that it could be downloaded for free and printed and copied and shared widely. And, of special note for you perhaps, the "easy-reading" part was definitely a priority even though it presented some fairly detailed analyses of published scientific studies and complex statistics.

- MJM
PP, btw, if you don't care for long reams of text, I'd definitely advise against your attempting to read TobakkoNacht. It's a little over 175,000 words and has over 400 citations for you to look up for verification. You *might* be able to deal with my much shorter and freely available "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" however. That's basically a short, big-print, easy-reading pamphlet sort of thing designed for quick reading by distracted people in dimly lit bars. It was written specifically so that it could be downloaded for free and printed and copied and shared widely. And, of special note for you perhaps, the "easy-reading" part was definitely a priority even though it presented some fairly detailed analyses of published scientific studies and complex statistics. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

2:49pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Sorry! Forgot to supply the URL for the "Lies" :

http://kuneman.smoke
rsclub.com/PASAN/Sti
lettoGenv5h.pdf

As always, any specific, substantive criticisms are quite welcome.

- MJM
Sorry! Forgot to supply the URL for the "Lies" : http://kuneman.smoke rsclub.com/PASAN/Sti lettoGenv5h.pdf As always, any specific, substantive criticisms are quite welcome. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

2:53pm Tue 11 Feb 14

scottwichall says...

PP do you smoke?
PP do you smoke? scottwichall

2:57pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
PP, you didn't show any inclination to read shorter reams of text earlier, so I don't feel that's a great loss. Your reading limitations are rather difficult to deal with: too long, too short, there, or here.... Would it help if I wrote in Outer Mongolian? Hmm.... mayhaps THAT is where you live!

Are we limited to discrimination only in the UK now? In case you never picked up on it, I'm in the US. Perhaps you have a friend who could read the "About The Author" page to you?

- MJM
I actually guessed as much. Smoking evangelists always seem to have google set up to highlight any mention of smoking.

You use the word "discrimination". How so? Is smoking banned in the UK? If you don't like the laws in the UK then don't live here - oh no, you don't, do you? How about I critisise your countrys perverse gun laws - or is it actually none of my business.
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: PP, you didn't show any inclination to read shorter reams of text earlier, so I don't feel that's a great loss. Your reading limitations are rather difficult to deal with: too long, too short, there, or here.... Would it help if I wrote in Outer Mongolian? Hmm.... mayhaps THAT is where you live! Are we limited to discrimination only in the UK now? In case you never picked up on it, I'm in the US. Perhaps you have a friend who could read the "About The Author" page to you? - MJM[/p][/quote]I actually guessed as much. Smoking evangelists always seem to have google set up to highlight any mention of smoking. You use the word "discrimination". How so? Is smoking banned in the UK? If you don't like the laws in the UK then don't live here - oh no, you don't, do you? How about I critisise your countrys perverse gun laws - or is it actually none of my business. Phantom Poster

3:19pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

PP, feel free to criticize perverse gun laws on threads following articles about gun laws. I wouldn't dream of stopping you. You *do* seem to have some difficulty dealing with criticizing writings about smoking on an article dealing with perverse smoking laws, so maybe you should look around.

No idea at all what you're talking about with reference to googling, but if you want a ref to UK discrimination, here's one:

http://www.barnsley-
chronicle.co.uk/news
/article/6186/charit
y-helper-who-was-smo
king-told-to-go-home


- MJM
PP, feel free to criticize perverse gun laws on threads following articles about gun laws. I wouldn't dream of stopping you. You *do* seem to have some difficulty dealing with criticizing writings about smoking on an article dealing with perverse smoking laws, so maybe you should look around. No idea at all what you're talking about with reference to googling, but if you want a ref to UK discrimination, here's one: http://www.barnsley- chronicle.co.uk/news /article/6186/charit y-helper-who-was-smo king-told-to-go-home - MJM Michael J. McFadden

3:58pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
PP, feel free to criticize perverse gun laws on threads following articles about gun laws. I wouldn't dream of stopping you. You *do* seem to have some difficulty dealing with criticizing writings about smoking on an article dealing with perverse smoking laws, so maybe you should look around.

No idea at all what you're talking about with reference to googling, but if you want a ref to UK discrimination, here's one:

http://www.barnsley-

chronicle.co.uk/news

/article/6186/charit

y-helper-who-was-smo

king-told-to-go-home



- MJM
The guy was a volunteer, so he didn't lose his job. Has it occurred to you that newspaper articles don't always tell the whole story? Perhaps the guy was just generally obnoxious and didn't get on with the other volunteers - who knows. I certainly wouldn't take at face value a local newpaper article regarding a guy with a gripe.
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: PP, feel free to criticize perverse gun laws on threads following articles about gun laws. I wouldn't dream of stopping you. You *do* seem to have some difficulty dealing with criticizing writings about smoking on an article dealing with perverse smoking laws, so maybe you should look around. No idea at all what you're talking about with reference to googling, but if you want a ref to UK discrimination, here's one: http://www.barnsley- chronicle.co.uk/news /article/6186/charit y-helper-who-was-smo king-told-to-go-home - MJM[/p][/quote]The guy was a volunteer, so he didn't lose his job. Has it occurred to you that newspaper articles don't always tell the whole story? Perhaps the guy was just generally obnoxious and didn't get on with the other volunteers - who knows. I certainly wouldn't take at face value a local newpaper article regarding a guy with a gripe. Phantom Poster

4:47pm Tue 11 Feb 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Touche pas a ma clope :-)
Touche pas a ma clope :-) A.Baron-Cohen

5:30pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Thank you PP! I knew you'd come in useful! :)

You've illustrated one of the more subtle forms of the discrimination and social engineering encouraged by the antismoking movement. When they were first pushing smoking bans, workers were so desperate to hold on to their jobs that they began working as volunteers without pay -- just depending upon tips and goodwill from smoking customers and their friends.

Of course this situation was intolerable to Antismokers, since even a few establishments allowing smoking utterly destroyed the profits of any place nearby laboring under a ban. So... what did the Antismokers do? Simple: they redefined the word "Employee" in an Orwellian sort of way so that even if a husband asked his wife to grab a beer from the fridge while they were watching a soccer match the situation could be interpreted as a workplace under the law!

Specifically, the wording which has now become boilerplate, here in the States at least, defines an Employee as anyone who “performs services for an Employer with or without compensation.” Put that into Google (inside the quotes) and you'll get about 6,000 hits, with virtually all of them referring to smoking bans. Now, put it into Google and add a negative conditioner:

“performs services for an Employer with or without compensation.” -smoking

(Note, there's a space between the quote and the minus sign, but not between the minus sign and smoking.)

What do you get? *ONE* hit. This NewSpeak form of "Employee" was created SPECIFICALLY so that smoking bans could be applied to volunteer organizations.

I examine that whole area of language distortion and abuse extensively in both Brains and TobakkoNacht ... not that you'd be interested in reading them of course ... but hey, thank you for offering me the opportunity to point it out!

Anything else you can do for me today? Some specific, substantive criticisms perhaps? Or did I already ask for those??

- MJM
Thank you PP! I knew you'd come in useful! :) You've illustrated one of the more subtle forms of the discrimination and social engineering encouraged by the antismoking movement. When they were first pushing smoking bans, workers were so desperate to hold on to their jobs that they began working as volunteers without pay -- just depending upon tips and goodwill from smoking customers and their friends. Of course this situation was intolerable to Antismokers, since even a few establishments allowing smoking utterly destroyed the profits of any place nearby laboring under a ban. So... what did the Antismokers do? Simple: they redefined the word "Employee" in an Orwellian sort of way so that even if a husband asked his wife to grab a beer from the fridge while they were watching a soccer match the situation could be interpreted as a workplace under the law! Specifically, the wording which has now become boilerplate, here in the States at least, defines an Employee as anyone who “performs services for an Employer with or without compensation.” Put that into Google (inside the quotes) and you'll get about 6,000 hits, with virtually all of them referring to smoking bans. Now, put it into Google and add a negative conditioner: “performs services for an Employer with or without compensation.” -smoking (Note, there's a space between the quote and the minus sign, but not between the minus sign and smoking.) What do you get? *ONE* hit. This NewSpeak form of "Employee" was created SPECIFICALLY so that smoking bans could be applied to volunteer organizations. I examine that whole area of language distortion and abuse extensively in both Brains and TobakkoNacht ... not that you'd be interested in reading them of course ... but hey, thank you for offering me the opportunity to point it out! Anything else you can do for me today? Some specific, substantive criticisms perhaps? Or did I already ask for those?? - MJM Michael J. McFadden

6:43pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Phantom Poster says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Thank you PP! I knew you'd come in useful! :)

You've illustrated one of the more subtle forms of the discrimination and social engineering encouraged by the antismoking movement. When they were first pushing smoking bans, workers were so desperate to hold on to their jobs that they began working as volunteers without pay -- just depending upon tips and goodwill from smoking customers and their friends.

Of course this situation was intolerable to Antismokers, since even a few establishments allowing smoking utterly destroyed the profits of any place nearby laboring under a ban. So... what did the Antismokers do? Simple: they redefined the word "Employee" in an Orwellian sort of way so that even if a husband asked his wife to grab a beer from the fridge while they were watching a soccer match the situation could be interpreted as a workplace under the law!

Specifically, the wording which has now become boilerplate, here in the States at least, defines an Employee as anyone who “performs services for an Employer with or without compensation.” Put that into Google (inside the quotes) and you'll get about 6,000 hits, with virtually all of them referring to smoking bans. Now, put it into Google and add a negative conditioner:

“performs services for an Employer with or without compensation.” -smoking

(Note, there's a space between the quote and the minus sign, but not between the minus sign and smoking.)

What do you get? *ONE* hit. This NewSpeak form of "Employee" was created SPECIFICALLY so that smoking bans could be applied to volunteer organizations.

I examine that whole area of language distortion and abuse extensively in both Brains and TobakkoNacht ... not that you'd be interested in reading them of course ... but hey, thank you for offering me the opportunity to point it out!

Anything else you can do for me today? Some specific, substantive criticisms perhaps? Or did I already ask for those??

- MJM
My post was short and to the point and yet you totally ignored one important point - "Has it occurred to you that newspaper articles don't always tell the whole story?"

Why are you coming to a UK based forum and posting details of US employee legislation? You do realise that the UK has a different legal system?

What specific criticism are you looking for? Smoking is not banned in the UK - you are free to smoke wherever you want so long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples right to not have to breathe in your smoke. That seems entirely reasonable to me - unless you have a selfish desire to inflict your smoking on others.

You are correct - I'm not interested in reading your book - why would I have any interest in the US smoking industry and legislation? So you can't smoke absolutely everywhere you want to and have to show consideration for others - oh boo hoo, I feel so sorry for you.

In answer to scottwichall - no I don't smoke. However, I have chain smoking members in my family and many friends who smoke. I have no problem with them as they show consideration towards others and just get on with their lives - they don't constantly bleat about not being allowed to smoke in pubs etc.
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Thank you PP! I knew you'd come in useful! :) You've illustrated one of the more subtle forms of the discrimination and social engineering encouraged by the antismoking movement. When they were first pushing smoking bans, workers were so desperate to hold on to their jobs that they began working as volunteers without pay -- just depending upon tips and goodwill from smoking customers and their friends. Of course this situation was intolerable to Antismokers, since even a few establishments allowing smoking utterly destroyed the profits of any place nearby laboring under a ban. So... what did the Antismokers do? Simple: they redefined the word "Employee" in an Orwellian sort of way so that even if a husband asked his wife to grab a beer from the fridge while they were watching a soccer match the situation could be interpreted as a workplace under the law! Specifically, the wording which has now become boilerplate, here in the States at least, defines an Employee as anyone who “performs services for an Employer with or without compensation.” Put that into Google (inside the quotes) and you'll get about 6,000 hits, with virtually all of them referring to smoking bans. Now, put it into Google and add a negative conditioner: “performs services for an Employer with or without compensation.” -smoking (Note, there's a space between the quote and the minus sign, but not between the minus sign and smoking.) What do you get? *ONE* hit. This NewSpeak form of "Employee" was created SPECIFICALLY so that smoking bans could be applied to volunteer organizations. I examine that whole area of language distortion and abuse extensively in both Brains and TobakkoNacht ... not that you'd be interested in reading them of course ... but hey, thank you for offering me the opportunity to point it out! Anything else you can do for me today? Some specific, substantive criticisms perhaps? Or did I already ask for those?? - MJM[/p][/quote]My post was short and to the point and yet you totally ignored one important point - "Has it occurred to you that newspaper articles don't always tell the whole story?" Why are you coming to a UK based forum and posting details of US employee legislation? You do realise that the UK has a different legal system? What specific criticism are you looking for? Smoking is not banned in the UK - you are free to smoke wherever you want so long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples right to not have to breathe in your smoke. That seems entirely reasonable to me - unless you have a selfish desire to inflict your smoking on others. You are correct - I'm not interested in reading your book - why would I have any interest in the US smoking industry and legislation? So you can't smoke absolutely everywhere you want to and have to show consideration for others - oh boo hoo, I feel so sorry for you. In answer to scottwichall - no I don't smoke. However, I have chain smoking members in my family and many friends who smoke. I have no problem with them as they show consideration towards others and just get on with their lives - they don't constantly bleat about not being allowed to smoke in pubs etc. Phantom Poster

7:12pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

"you totally ignored one important point - "Has it occurred to you that newspaper articles don't always tell the whole story?" "

Didn't ignore it at all PP. It's very directly addressed, in several places in "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at (again, for your convenience): http://TinyURL.com/S
mokingBanLies

Why come to the UK forum? Because I've helped Free Choice activists over there in their fight, and they've helped me in mine over here. The antismoking movement is a worldwide network you realize: they hold semi-annual conferences costing ten to twenty million dollars and maintain a private email network known as GlobaLink.

What criticism am I looking for? Well, any criticism you might have of my positions on and analyses of the scientific and other bases supporting smoking bans and the denormalization/ghet
toization efforts.

Why would you be interested in the US story? Simple: the US antismoking movement was largely exported to the UK. You should read Snowdon's VGIF for a better understanding of that if you're actually interested.

As for your "right not to not have to breathe in (my) smoke" you have no such right if you enter a place that allows smoking and in which I am smoking. And if you try or succeed in passing laws forbidding places from granting such a freedom, then that is what I will fight... although you seem "to have a selfish desire to inflict" your preferences on others.

- MJM
"you totally ignored one important point - "Has it occurred to you that newspaper articles don't always tell the whole story?" " Didn't ignore it at all PP. It's very directly addressed, in several places in "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at (again, for your convenience): http://TinyURL.com/S mokingBanLies Why come to the UK forum? Because I've helped Free Choice activists over there in their fight, and they've helped me in mine over here. The antismoking movement is a worldwide network you realize: they hold semi-annual conferences costing ten to twenty million dollars and maintain a private email network known as GlobaLink. What criticism am I looking for? Well, any criticism you might have of my positions on and analyses of the scientific and other bases supporting smoking bans and the denormalization/ghet toization efforts. Why would you be interested in the US story? Simple: the US antismoking movement was largely exported to the UK. You should read Snowdon's VGIF for a better understanding of that if you're actually interested. As for your "right not to not have to breathe in (my) smoke" you have no such right if you enter a place that allows smoking and in which I am smoking. And if you try or succeed in passing laws forbidding places from granting such a freedom, then that is what I will fight... although you seem "to have a selfish desire to inflict" your preferences on others. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

3:26pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Junican says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?
That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.
How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?
None. Everybody dies.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: If it is one of the biggest killer in Swindon, then why is it not classed as a drug?[/p][/quote]That's a rather odd question, given that Nicotine IS classed as a drug and has been for decades.[/p][/quote]How many deaths could be avoided if Tobacco was made illegal?[/p][/quote]None. Everybody dies. Junican

7:24am Thu 13 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

"Everybody dies."

Junican, shhh! The Antismokers don't want people to know that!

- MJM
"Everybody dies." Junican, shhh! The Antismokers don't want people to know that! - MJM Michael J. McFadden

3:43pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped.

When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped.

To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht.

com

- MJM
Wow nice sales pitch?
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Interesting article -- given that just four months ago I published a 500+ page book titled "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame" in which I both predicted this path AND outlined how it can and why it SHOULD be successfully stopped. When we see a social movement that seeks to scare parents into not allowing their children to visit with grandparents on Christmas because of the "poison" on their carpeting, when we see a movement that shrugs off the closure of thousands of pubs and the firings/layoffs of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of workers, when we see a movement that promotes the hatred, denormalization, dehumanization, and ghettoization of hundreds of millions of human beings... then we see a movement that needs to be stopped. To gain a better understanding of just how this sort of thing can grow, how baseless its claims are, and why it is so serious, read the "Author's Preface" at http://TobakkoNacht. com - MJM[/p][/quote]Wow nice sales pitch? Badgersgetabadname

3:47pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
People who defend smoking or say something else is worse need their heads reading.
Smoking is the "worst" thing? just your first thought there or did you arrive at this from looking at other options?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: People who defend smoking or say something else is worse need their heads reading.[/p][/quote]Smoking is the "worst" thing? just your first thought there or did you arrive at this from looking at other options? Badgersgetabadname

4:25pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Just for fun how about dropping insults and returning to topic?
No government (no matter who is in power) will ban smoking the financial rewards in taxed are too great.
Attempting to bully masses into something never works out as with all the literature / information that is available we cannot seriously suggest ignorance as an excuses. You over eat you get fat, you drink to much your liver rots etc etc etc... I am sure your information contained in your book is as valid as any other published opinion.
There is no quick fix to this, someone mentioned visiting people suffering with cancer as an idea, maybe bringing some of these people into schools may help.
I know the Swindon Advertiser has recently worked hand in hand with the Prospect as they are one of the oldest (160 years) and most visible businesses in the town they could lead the way with stub it out and vow to work to a non smoking business, following the efforts of staff through the company? Just a thought as someone / thing needs to champion.
Just for fun how about dropping insults and returning to topic? No government (no matter who is in power) will ban smoking the financial rewards in taxed are too great. Attempting to bully masses into something never works out as with all the literature / information that is available we cannot seriously suggest ignorance as an excuses. You over eat you get fat, you drink to much your liver rots etc etc etc... I am sure your information contained in your book is as valid as any other published opinion. There is no quick fix to this, someone mentioned visiting people suffering with cancer as an idea, maybe bringing some of these people into schools may help. I know the Swindon Advertiser has recently worked hand in hand with the Prospect as they are one of the oldest (160 years) and most visible businesses in the town they could lead the way with stub it out and vow to work to a non smoking business, following the efforts of staff through the company? Just a thought as someone / thing needs to champion. Badgersgetabadname

5:37pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Badger wrote, "Wow nice sales pitch?" Bad, if it was a sales pitch I'd have sent folks to Amazon to buy the book rather than directing them to the site where they can read the relevant material for free. Duh.

Alternatively of course I *could* have simply copy/pasted the entire Preface argument here, but I don't think throwing a thousand or so words of cut 'n paste into a discussion area would have been very polite.

- MJM
Badger wrote, "Wow nice sales pitch?" Bad, if it was a sales pitch I'd have sent folks to Amazon to buy the book rather than directing them to the site where they can read the relevant material for free. Duh. Alternatively of course I *could* have simply copy/pasted the entire Preface argument here, but I don't think throwing a thousand or so words of cut 'n paste into a discussion area would have been very polite. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

10:51pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Michael J. McFadden wrote:
Badger wrote, "Wow nice sales pitch?" Bad, if it was a sales pitch I'd have sent folks to Amazon to buy the book rather than directing them to the site where they can read the relevant material for free. Duh.

Alternatively of course I *could* have simply copy/pasted the entire Preface argument here, but I don't think throwing a thousand or so words of cut 'n paste into a discussion area would have been very polite.

- MJM
I did have a look on amazon for you leaflet and had some good reviews. Its well written and I liked the different writing styles.
Not everyone is going to agree with you that is why they are called opinions.
You have obviously worked hard on your titles and I will down load and read as long as I can find a free version.
You did put links up and the title so you kind of did send people to the page oh no sorry that was my choice....just like smoking.
The general opinions in the town are bitter and just want to point fingers at anyone but themselves.
Selfish, aging, rotten and dying may as well smoke.
[quote][p][bold]Michael J. McFadden[/bold] wrote: Badger wrote, "Wow nice sales pitch?" Bad, if it was a sales pitch I'd have sent folks to Amazon to buy the book rather than directing them to the site where they can read the relevant material for free. Duh. Alternatively of course I *could* have simply copy/pasted the entire Preface argument here, but I don't think throwing a thousand or so words of cut 'n paste into a discussion area would have been very polite. - MJM[/p][/quote]I did have a look on amazon for you leaflet and had some good reviews. Its well written and I liked the different writing styles. Not everyone is going to agree with you that is why they are called opinions. You have obviously worked hard on your titles and I will down load and read as long as I can find a free version. You did put links up and the title so you kind of did send people to the page oh no sorry that was my choice....just like smoking. The general opinions in the town are bitter and just want to point fingers at anyone but themselves. Selfish, aging, rotten and dying may as well smoke. Badgersgetabadname

1:45am Sat 15 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

" Its well written and I liked the different writing styles."

Thank you Badgers! :) The different styles are important: it's got a lot of information packed into 500 pages, and if it was all just one prolonged exposition most people would be quickly put to sleep. It's set up specifically to convey the information and arguments while keeping fresh all the way through.

The "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at the tinyurl SmokingBanLies is a bit different: it was kept VERY short so that people could download it for free and print it out themselves for spreading around in a "Campaign aiming to stamp out the Campaign aiming to stamp out smoking."

The odd thing is that I actually have nothing against "Campaign aiming to stamp out smoking" if the campaign had actually stayed honest and limited itself to reasonable limitations and educations. When they went beyond that and moved into realms of social engineering that involved real and significant harm to millions of people while also helping to develop and refine methods of large-scale peacetime brainwashing and behavior control... THAT is where I couldn't simply accept and ignore it as just being a well-intentioned-if-
perhaps-a-bit-misgui
ded social movement.

The question then became one of how to fight a multi-billion-dollar
-a-year industry with no inherent source of funding that wouldn't be rendered useless by being tied to a hated industry. The answer I came up with was information-intensiv
e and spread over several different mediums in multiple formats: chats/posts such as this, free handout/reproduceabl
e flyers and booklets, and full-fledged books that would lay out the entire depth of the arguments and facts in a way that a serious reader would find hard to ignore.

Soooo.... that's the story of the "Campaign" facing up to the "Campaign" featured in this article. Whether something based on a financial structure of multi-thousands-of-c
ents can successfully fight off something based on of based on thousands of billions of dollars remains to be seen.

- MJM
" Its well written and I liked the different writing styles." Thank you Badgers! :) The different styles are important: it's got a lot of information packed into 500 pages, and if it was all just one prolonged exposition most people would be quickly put to sleep. It's set up specifically to convey the information and arguments while keeping fresh all the way through. The "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at the tinyurl SmokingBanLies is a bit different: it was kept VERY short so that people could download it for free and print it out themselves for spreading around in a "Campaign aiming to stamp out the Campaign aiming to stamp out smoking." The odd thing is that I actually have nothing against "Campaign aiming to stamp out smoking" if the campaign had actually stayed honest and limited itself to reasonable limitations and educations. When they went beyond that and moved into realms of social engineering that involved real and significant harm to millions of people while also helping to develop and refine methods of large-scale peacetime brainwashing and behavior control... THAT is where I couldn't simply accept and ignore it as just being a well-intentioned-if- perhaps-a-bit-misgui ded social movement. The question then became one of how to fight a multi-billion-dollar -a-year industry with no inherent source of funding that wouldn't be rendered useless by being tied to a hated industry. The answer I came up with was information-intensiv e and spread over several different mediums in multiple formats: chats/posts such as this, free handout/reproduceabl e flyers and booklets, and full-fledged books that would lay out the entire depth of the arguments and facts in a way that a serious reader would find hard to ignore. Soooo.... that's the story of the "Campaign" facing up to the "Campaign" featured in this article. Whether something based on a financial structure of multi-thousands-of-c ents can successfully fight off something based on of based on thousands of billions of dollars remains to be seen. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

2:37am Sat 15 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Correction: my last paragraph of that last post,

"Soooo.... that's the story of the "Campaign" facing up to the "Campaign" featured in this article. Whether something based on a financial structure of multi-thousands-of-c
ents can successfully fight off something based on of based on thousands of billions of dollars remains to be seen."

should read:

"Soooo.... that's the story of the "Campaign" facing up to the "Campaign" featured in this article. Whether something based on a financial structure of multi-thousands-of-c
ents can successfully fight off something based on of based on multi-billions-of-do
llars remains to be seen."
Correction: my last paragraph of that last post, "Soooo.... that's the story of the "Campaign" facing up to the "Campaign" featured in this article. Whether something based on a financial structure of multi-thousands-of-c ents can successfully fight off something based on of based on thousands of billions of dollars remains to be seen." should read: "Soooo.... that's the story of the "Campaign" facing up to the "Campaign" featured in this article. Whether something based on a financial structure of multi-thousands-of-c ents can successfully fight off something based on of based on multi-billions-of-do llars remains to be seen." Michael J. McFadden

12:35pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Tyran66 says...

People should be allowed to do what they want and endanger themselves as they please (within reason) after all its a large part of what being an adult is - free choice. Decision & consequence.

They should not however be allowed to endanger children or others in the process, I would be very much in favour of banning tobacco from every nook and cranny of society where the vulnerable could possibly be exposed.

The financial solution is simple. A two tier NHS, if you smoke or drink heavily - more power to your elbow - but you should be classified as high risk and pay a premium from NHS treatments. If you don't like it? Don't smoke after all its hardly one of life essential requirements. Conversely if you don't engage in the vices of life, treatment should be entirely free.

You make your choices, live with the consequences. For the record I am ex-smoker that quit when my first child was born. No treatment, no substitute - I just stopped, its really not that hard if you just accept it is no longer an option for you.
People should be allowed to do what they want and endanger themselves as they please (within reason) after all its a large part of what being an adult is - free choice. Decision & consequence. They should not however be allowed to endanger children or others in the process, I would be very much in favour of banning tobacco from every nook and cranny of society where the vulnerable could possibly be exposed. The financial solution is simple. A two tier NHS, if you smoke or drink heavily - more power to your elbow - but you should be classified as high risk and pay a premium from NHS treatments. If you don't like it? Don't smoke after all its hardly one of life essential requirements. Conversely if you don't engage in the vices of life, treatment should be entirely free. You make your choices, live with the consequences. For the record I am ex-smoker that quit when my first child was born. No treatment, no substitute - I just stopped, its really not that hard if you just accept it is no longer an option for you. Tyran66

1:24pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Tyran, you wrote, "People should be allowed to do what they want and endanger themselves as they please (within reason) ... They should not however be allowed to endanger children or others in the process, I would be very much in favour of banning tobacco from every nook and cranny of society where the vulnerable could possibly be exposed."

Would you also be very much in favor of banning alcohol from every nook and cranny? Visit your local hospital and see how many children are brought in with broken bones because their parents had been smoking. See how many of them are homeless because their father smoked too much, got drunk on it, and lost his job. While exulting about smoking being banned in cars with children, count the mangled bodies from drinking.

Perhaps you're correct though in saying "The financial solution is simple." but in addition to a two tier NHS how about taxing alcohol at a parity level with tobacco. The UK taxes tobacco at about 500% of its base price I believe. Try tripling or quadrupling the cost of all your alcohol so that the two are treated fairly. How could anyone complain, right? It's only being "fair" -- and if it was fair for the smokers then it's fair for the drinkers.

And, "If you don't like it? Don't (drink) after all its hardly one of life essential requirements."

Hmm... perhaps as a final "nudge" all pubs could be forced by law to allow drinking only in sections with less than three walls and no roof in February.

- MJM
Tyran, you wrote, "People should be allowed to do what they want and endanger themselves as they please (within reason) ... They should not however be allowed to endanger children or others in the process, I would be very much in favour of banning tobacco from every nook and cranny of society where the vulnerable could possibly be exposed." Would you also be very much in favor of banning alcohol from every nook and cranny? Visit your local hospital and see how many children are brought in with broken bones because their parents had been smoking. See how many of them are homeless because their father smoked too much, got drunk on it, and lost his job. While exulting about smoking being banned in cars with children, count the mangled bodies from drinking. Perhaps you're correct though in saying "The financial solution is simple." but in addition to a two tier NHS how about taxing alcohol at a parity level with tobacco. The UK taxes tobacco at about 500% of its base price I believe. Try tripling or quadrupling the cost of all your alcohol so that the two are treated fairly. How could anyone complain, right? It's only being "fair" -- and if it was fair for the smokers then it's fair for the drinkers. And, "If you don't like it? Don't (drink) after all its hardly one of life essential requirements." Hmm... perhaps as a final "nudge" all pubs could be forced by law to allow drinking only in sections with less than three walls and no roof in February. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

2:08pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

What could of been a really interesting topic has once again turned into passive aggressive personal insults.
Well done people.
What could of been a really interesting topic has once again turned into passive aggressive personal insults. Well done people. Badgersgetabadname

11:13pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Tyran66 says...

@ Michael J. Your comparison between alcohol and smoking is fundamentally flawed. The critical difference - you cannot consume alcohol indirectly or involuntarily!! I have yet to get **** from the chap drinking a pint next to me in the pub. Smoking however fills the surrounding atmosphere with toxins - completely indiscriminately. Exposing whoever is unfortunate enough to be present at the time - ask Roy Castle, if you still could.

This fact decimates the rest of your ridiculous argument.
@ Michael J. Your comparison between alcohol and smoking is fundamentally flawed. The critical difference - you cannot consume alcohol indirectly or involuntarily!! I have yet to get **** from the chap drinking a pint next to me in the pub. Smoking however fills the surrounding atmosphere with toxins - completely indiscriminately. Exposing whoever is unfortunate enough to be present at the time - ask Roy Castle, if you still could. This fact decimates the rest of your ridiculous argument. Tyran66

8:00am Mon 17 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Tyran, you wrote, " you cannot consume alcohol indirectly or involuntarily!! "

Sorry Tyran. Two points:

1) Most of my argument had to do with such things as child beatings and drunken driving -- both of which are forms of "secondhand drinking."

2) And you most *certainly* consume alcohol indirectly or involuntarily in vapor form if you're in a room with people drinking. See my piece in the British Medical Journal analyzing that question at:

http://www.bmj.com/r
apid-response/2011/1
0/30/secondary-smoke
-alcohol-and-deaths

and feel free to stop back here with any specific and substantive criticisms or questions. I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond.

- MJM
Tyran, you wrote, " you cannot consume alcohol indirectly or involuntarily!! " Sorry Tyran. Two points: 1) Most of my argument had to do with such things as child beatings and drunken driving -- both of which are forms of "secondhand drinking." 2) And you most *certainly* consume alcohol indirectly or involuntarily in vapor form if you're in a room with people drinking. See my piece in the British Medical Journal analyzing that question at: http://www.bmj.com/r apid-response/2011/1 0/30/secondary-smoke -alcohol-and-deaths and feel free to stop back here with any specific and substantive criticisms or questions. I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

8:09am Mon 17 Feb 14

Michael J. McFadden says...

Re Roy Castle: I don't know if you're familiar with the EPA Report that resulted in most of the first big wave of smoking bans in the 1990s, but they are generally seen as the "Gold Standard" of antismoking support.

However.... even according to THEIR figures, the most that anyone could say about Roy Castle's death was that there was about one chance in five that it had to do with smoke exposure.

And in terms of most people out there? Again, using the EPA's 19% increase for a lifetime of workplace exposure, and applying it to the base nonsmoking lung cancer rate of 4/10ths of 1%, it would take, on average, 40,000 worker-years of constant 1950s/1960s levels of smoke exposure to produce a single case of lung cancer.

Not quite the sense of it that you pick up from the antismoking organizations and the media press releases they put out, eh? The problem is that you simply believe, without questioning or further reading, everything bad you hear about smoking -- in much the same way that some people believe everything bad they hear about Obama, or about UKIP, or about Muslims, or about the Irish. You let your prejudices form your thinking instead of your knowledge.

Read a bit more and think about some of the arguments out there. Try starting with the free booklet at http://TinyURL.com/S
mokingBanLies and, again, feel free etc.
- MJM
Re Roy Castle: I don't know if you're familiar with the EPA Report that resulted in most of the first big wave of smoking bans in the 1990s, but they are generally seen as the "Gold Standard" of antismoking support. However.... even according to THEIR figures, the most that anyone could say about Roy Castle's death was that there was about one chance in five that it had to do with smoke exposure. And in terms of most people out there? Again, using the EPA's 19% increase for a lifetime of workplace exposure, and applying it to the base nonsmoking lung cancer rate of 4/10ths of 1%, it would take, on average, 40,000 worker-years of constant 1950s/1960s levels of smoke exposure to produce a single case of lung cancer. Not quite the sense of it that you pick up from the antismoking organizations and the media press releases they put out, eh? The problem is that you simply believe, without questioning or further reading, everything bad you hear about smoking -- in much the same way that some people believe everything bad they hear about Obama, or about UKIP, or about Muslims, or about the Irish. You let your prejudices form your thinking instead of your knowledge. Read a bit more and think about some of the arguments out there. Try starting with the free booklet at http://TinyURL.com/S mokingBanLies and, again, feel free etc. - MJM Michael J. McFadden

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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