Secondhand Smoke Trial Judgement

This is a post which should have particular interest for bloggers, such as this one, this one and this one (who has finished smoking yet defends the rights of those who do), plus many others who believe secondhand smoke, unless in a very enclosed environment, is a serious danger to health.

 In Maryland, US, there has been a trial which the British MSM has ignored.

David Schuman and his wife live in a 'village' designed by Greenbelt Homes Inc. (GHI). His neighbour in the adjoining 'town house' terrace is Darko Popovic and his wife.  Mr Popovik and his wife enjoy a smoke, yet for the past couple of years Mrs Popovic has given up smoking and Mr Popovic has reduced his smoking to a few of an evening in his garden.  He used to enjoy it more when his wife joined him and they could sit outside mulling over the day's events.

Mr Schuman however is not a smoker.  He detests smoking and, according to his evidence has health issues which are affected by secondhand some. He has constantly complained to GHI about the smoke from the Popovics' cigarettes permeating his home.  Although the homes are what would be called new builds, he insisted that GHI's building standards were adequate and paid thousands in having all windows and doors resealed.

Mr Schuman wasn't happy with the responses from complaining to both GHI and Mr Popovic over the years. (He now refuses to discuss the matter with the Popovics), so he took both to court asking for $300,000 from GHI because they wouldn't tell the Popovics to stop smoking because they were breaking the rules of the 'village' and another $300,000 from the Popovics.

Earlier in the case the judge stated the $300,000 claim from Schuman against GHI was not credible, but let a similar claim against the Popovics stand.

The verdict?  You can read it here, but considering the judge's family history, he has shown his personal experiences are not considered in his judgement.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is when James Repace, the biophysicist hired by the plaintiff, found the same level of 'cancer-causing' particles with his monitor in the smoke-free courtroom as he had in Schuman's living room with Darko Popovice smoking outside his own home, was the clincher.

Credit to Judge Albert Northrop for refusing to be influenced by propaganda.  I do not condone smoking, but I do respect the right of people to smoke if they wish and smokers I know are responsible and social individuals.

Tweet

The Smoking Buddhist

My sympathy goes to the 23 year old Buddhist monk Sonan Tshering, who is facing three years in prison after becoming the first casualty of a stringent anti-smoking law in the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan - a country which claims to be Shangri-La and considers gross national happiness before gross domestic product - vows to become the first smoke-free nation.

Mr Tshering has been convicted of consuming and smuggling contraband tobacco under a law that came into force in January. In 2005 the sale of tobacco was banned in Bhutan because it was considered bad for one's karma, but it failed to make much of an impact because of the thriving smuggling operation from neighbouring India.

The new law permits the police to enter homes, threaten jail for shopkeepers selling tobacco and smokers who fail to provide customs receipts for imported cigarettes.  Smoking in private is not illegal but the sale of cigarettes is banned, although smokers can legally import 200 cigarettes of 150grams of other tobacco products a month.  They must provide a customs receipt when challenged by police.

The young monk bought the 72 packets of chewing tobacco from the Indian border town of Jaigoan and it was for personal use.  He said he was unaware of the new law and had no tax receipt from the customs department.

Illegal cigarette sales have almost stopped in small shops as shopkeepers say it's difficult to hide tobacco from sniffer dogs.

The leader of the political opposition said the sentence was "very, very harsh.  It's not in line with the character of Bhutan which is based on tolerance, compassion and justice".  This politician certainly lives in Shangri-La.  In the early 90s, many thousands of ethnic Nepalese who lived in Bhutan were stripped of their citizenship and forced into exile, apparently in a bid to ensure a homogenous culture.  Up to 100,000 Nepalese had to live in camps in Nepal and an international attempt to resettle them in third countries is ongoing.

I'm surprised the monks haven't introduced a little tobacco growing/processing system within their hallowed walls. Religious institutions are historically renowned for bridging such gaps.

source

Tweet

Remember Remember the 5th of November

Last night a distant neighbour held his annual Guy Fawkes night. Usually it takes place the weekend nearest the 5 November but he must have had his reasons for it happening last night - or maybe that was just a rehearsal.  I don't know these neighbours but I have the benefit of seeing his half hour of fireworks from my garden each year and the show is perhaps better from here than his own place.

I know a few of the folk who would have been present and also have taken their grandchildren.  None are smokers (the adults not the grandchildren).  In fact a couple of them are 'anti-smokers' and dare I say hypocrites, because they're quite happy deriding cigarette smokers yet they're also happy inhaling arsenic and allowing their own grandchildren to inhale it during a lengthy firework display.  Let's not omit the inhalation of the smoke from the bonfire which will continue to smolder away until morning.

Should we ban fireworks? Of course not.  Should we ban the smoking of cigarettes?  There are many who would say yes, in fact I've suggested it myself occasionally.  Inhaling the 'second-hand' smoke is bad for you shout the anti-smoking lobbies but they don't call for smoking to be banned.  That's because the tax from smoking pays the wages of the antis.  Enjoy your celebrations and avoid eating that burnt baked potato.

Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot...

Tweet

Bad Science

'My devoted follower' - I'm so fortunate to have one - Clams Linguini has sent me the link to a video which unfortunately I can't download directly.

The subject is 'Bad science in a good cause is just bad science' and Professor John Davies, Director of the Centre of Applied Pyschology, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, explains his reasons for this statement.

For those who are interested in hearing the words of an eminent academic berating the brainwashing 'charities' - using the anti-smoking government funded organisations as his example - this is 4 minutes well spent.

The video can be viewed here.

Tweet

What's Missing from This Article?

An article in today's Daily Mail states that 'Children with asthma are twice as likely to need hospital treatment during the month of September'.

It goes on to say hospital admissions for under-16s in England were 58% higher during that month last year and the previous September, according to data from the NHS Information Centre.

Yet why aren't smokers mentioned? We're repeatedly told that smokers cause asthmatic problems for children but there's no mention of them here.

Do smokers puff away more in September than any other month? I doubt it. Not with the cost of cigarettes.

Perhaps it's because smoking and passive smoking is nothing to do with asthma. Perhaps it's because smoking has been used as an excuse for billions of pounds to be directed to a section of society and yet, in the case of child asthma proper investigation hasn't been initiated.

Let me say here that smoking is a choice. Most smokers wouldn't smoke anywhere which caused problems for others. For my own experience they're a very accommodating section of society. Som people complain about the smell and it sticks to their clothes: it does and it's not pleasant even for smokers. Yet the other evening I attended a small meeting in a hotel where the smell of burned/stale fried food permeated the atmosphere far worse than cigarette, pipe or cigar smoke. Nobody complained and they meet there on a bi-monthly basis. When I asked at a tea break if anyone was aware of it I was told "yes of course, but it's a cheap venue".

Far too often smoking is deemed to be the 'habit of evil' yet, without the taxes from those who smoke, the NHS would probably grind to a halt. We'd still have the diseases which are presently related to smoking but we wouldn't have the finance to cope with them.

This fellow blogger and this one will be pleased to read a newspaper article which doesn't blame smokers - because they're not the problem. I'm pleased too. Time the anti-smoking lobbies encouraged researchers to look out of the box, but they won't of course; they're funded by government to protest against the smoking sector of society and therefore any in depth research into asthma is curtailed although these figures show it's desperately needed.

The quangos such as ASH would lose their jobs if more articles like this appeared in the MSM. More people would wonder if smokers were being punished for little or no reason. Bring it on!

Tweet

The Smoking Debate and Reform

The Telegraph is hosting a vote 'Reform the Smoking Ban'. At present there are 65 fors and 9 againsts.

Yes I know, if you don't smoke, this is of little interest, but let's look at the wider issue. Only this week it's come to light that the 5-a-day for fruit and vegetables was a lie. There never was and still is not, any evidence to prove that 5 portions of fruit and veg were the way to a disease free life. Rather like the amount we should drink in a week.

Only recently a neighbour of mine was diagnosed with skin cancer. Her first words to me were, (I paraphrase here), "I never go out of the sun and I have my 5-a-day." That slogan promised to her that she would keep disease free. What a con!

The 5-a-day was thought up by a Californian woman to promote the sales of fruit in her area. She thought the local fruit producers weren't selling enough. The US government picked up on her slogan and the rest is history; well insofar as we follow the US like sheep on many occasions.

Let me say, as a person who loves vegetables, that I've always eaten much more than 5 a day, but I now sympathise with these parents who feel intense guilt because their children refused to conform to the government's advice. I well remember a grandmother friend being extremely distressed because she couldn't force her two grandchildren to eat vegetables or fruit after or even between meals. Her daughter (their mother) hnd always insisted that they must have their 'government ration' and because the children were now able to express themselves when their mother asked what they'd had to eat at granny's, she was distraught.

The result was illuminating. My friend's daughter had never managed to force her children to eat the required 5-a-day and she admitted to her mother she relied upon her to do it.

Smoking not banned. The government love the income they receive from smokers. It helps pay for quite a handsome part of the NHS yet they deny smokers the right to enjoy their habit in reasonable comfort. No other EU country enforces this law to this degree.

Go on, vote for reform or else vote for smoking to be made illegal.

Tweet

Make Tobacco Illegal

I do mean what the title says, make tobacco illegal.

Scotland is praised for being the first in the UK to ban smoking in public places. It came into being under a Westminster labour government and the Scottish government at the time, a labour/libdem, pushed it through. Why hasn't that act been compared with Margaret Thatcher's use of the Scots for her poll tax? Scotland was used as guinea pigs then but because it did not affect those who smoke or drink or even don't pay the absurd fee to the BBC, it has been ignored. It was used in exactly the same manner for the smoking ban but of course nobody noticed because it affected less of the population. It was a 'pilot' scheme using Scotland in the same manner Mrs Thatcher used Scotland for the poll tax.

The Scots are the pilot scheme of such Westminster ideas.

Today, a medic has proposed that smoking should be banned in cars. He goes on to say:

• One in five of all Sudden Infant Deaths (cot death) – 40 per year
• Over 20,000 cases of lower respiratory tract infection
• 120,000 cases of middle ear disease
• At least 22,000 new cases of wheeze and asthma
• 200 cases of bacterial meningitis

This is why I suggest that tobacco should be illegal. Let's call their bluff. Yes I smoke but I smoke responsibly along with millions in this country.

To imply that 40 babies a year die because of passive smoking puts hundreds of parents and families into the most serious state of guilt that they'll ever experience along with the other statistics quoted. I'm furious that such implications have been made without detailed evidence being available. It's appalling that a medic can make such a statement without serious evidence which has never been available to the public.

So many parents who have never smoked or who have had the sense to smoke away from their babies and who have experienced a cot death in the past 50 years or so will now be racked with guilt. How dreadful when these folk had to experience finding their baby dead when it was loved and cared for to bits. Many who never smoked will be thinking who entered their home and smoked. The distress for parents who have had 'cot death' babies must be unbearable today. The whole scenario doesn't bear thinking about because I'm sure, if tobacco was banned, the numbers would be similar to what they are today - that is if the statistics were based on similar evidence.

How are these statistics compiled?

No responsible parent these days smokes cigarettes in the same room as a baby or even young child. I will expand that to an elderly member of the family who, as is medically proven, has reduced lung capacity.

If smoking was to be made illegal then the figures above would disappear. The government would be far richer with taxes from fines of people like myself, who seldom has passengers in my own vehicle, yet I'll be easy meat for the 'car smoking' lobby.

It is not my intention to stop smoking in my car should I wish to do so. On the occasions when I have passengers I refrain. Fine me. Next it will be parents who 'allow' their children to become overweight. Don't think it will stop there because it won't. The parents of children who are classed underweight will also be fined.

So let's just ban tobacco altogether. Let's see how the government's coffers survive. Presently, the production costs in a packet of my preferred cigarettes is 41p, yet in supermarkets I pay well above £5.

I'm truly angry with the double standard of governments and also some of the people who don't realise how much of their freedoms are being withdrawn just because they believe that smokers are evil. Believe me smoking was an easy target - it had only around 40% of the population who indulged. Now particularly the Scottish government are insisting the cost of alcohol should increase yet they continue to support the habit of drunks being sent to jam up A & Es and not stuck in cells and fined for their breach of the piece behaviour.

Make tobacco illegal. Then let us see the statistics of cot deaths reduce by 40%, plus of course all the other statistics reduced by the figures quoted. I have no doubt that these numbers will stay much the same.

It won't happen. We know that. Yet people will believe these numbers, parents of cot death babies will be further haunted by their 'mistakes' and tobacco will continue to be legal because, on a packet of 20 cigarettes, £4 goes towards the treasury. Of course there's less taxation from obesity but the Righteous continue on their pilgrimage. These people must show the proof of their allegations before declaring such figures.

We must call their bluff and the only way to do that is make tobacco illegal. If this doesn't happen then the Righteous will take over the lives of all of us. Believe me it will happen and not just to do with smoking; that's only the beginning.

source

Editor's note: Apologies for the spelling error in the title. It has now been corrected. I must have had my head in Spain where outlets are called Tabac. That's my excuse!

Tweet

The Power of the Blogosphere

Firstly, this post is not about smokers and smoking, it's about our freedom to choose being lawfully denied each and every one of us.

Secondly, I must record my gratitude to Anna Raccoon and Old Holborn who have fought feverishly raise the money to pay Nick Hogan's fine and return him to his family. Nick, you may remember, is the ex-landlord who was fined £11,600 for permitting two people to smoke in his pub - even though he was not present in the building at the time. He was able to pay £1,600 but was unable to lay his hands on £10,000 and the judge decided such a failing required 6 months in prison.

The blogosphere raised the £11,600 to show that this was not justice and OH delivered it to the prison today.

Each and every one of us ought to be aware that the smoking policy is just the beginning of government's complete control over our freedom to choose.

Any one of us is at risk. If you come under any of the following headings: over 65, slightly overweight, drink alcohol, want the best school for your children, drive the 'wrong' car, take a photograph of a police officer - the list is endless - you are at risk.

What does concern me in the over 65 issue. It's well recorded over 65s don't matter. They don't give enough money to the Treasury although what they do give is on money which has already been taxed. The recent report on Stafford Hospital stated most patients were over 65 - obviously passed their usefulness date. Finally it's being reported that 60% of inspected hospitals in England were not accurately assessing their own performance.

Please consider this, if a landlord is fined/imprisoned for 'permitting' two people to smoke on his premises when he wasn't even present, do you feel that the justice system will deal with you fairly even though your 'offence' is nothing to do with smoking?

The smoking issue is the tip of a very large iceberg. You'd better believe it. Only we can change this and we must take some responsibility for allowing a government to destroy our beliefs of fairness and justice.

Tweet

Fines and Justice

I thought I'd post this in support of Nick Hogan, the ex-landlord who has been imprisoned for permitting smokers in his pubs.

Isn't it time more flexibility was applied to this law? Other countries have a much more sensible approach which doesn't endanger businesses. Are the government going to ban cars, buses, lorries next? Their emissions are far more dangerous to the average person than any second-hand smoke.

How many people are walking our streets having not paid court fines for crimes to do with knives and sex offences? Possibly far more than you think.

Thanks to TheBigYin and the Filthy Engineer

Tweet

Beware of Mid Life Check

This past week, on local radio, I've heard a public service advertisement for 'The Mid Life Check'.

Out of curiousity I thought I'd have a look at midlifecheck.co.uk. Fine so far. It would seem that you enter details of your lifestyle and once the information is processed you will be given advice on how to improve it. That sounds ok.

Then I read the 'help':

What if [sic] will happen to my information?

All personal information is confidential. We can't use it and we don't forward it to anyone else. We may use general statistics or data to help us understand how people use the NHS LifeCheck service.

Ah! There's the catch. More data collection by government. They can't stop trying to gain personal information from us can they. Sadly, many will innocently log onto this site without realising their input is stored and may be used for other purposes.

Yet another 'I Spy' government programme.

Tweet

The Privatisation of Primary Care

Produced and directed by Dr Grumble

Tweet