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

Today's Non-Story

My brain's 'faulty' according to scientists who report they have pinpointed a source of nicotine craving in the brain.

The 'fault' leads to an uncontrollable desire to smoke says lead researcher Dr Christie Fowler, from the Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, Florida, US. "If the pathway isn't functioning properly, you simply take more," she says.

According to Dr Fowler, it's all to do with genetic variation in the alpha5 nicotinic receptor subunit.

The Scripps Research Institute funding:

The Institute's $360 million operating budget includes federal funding, financial incentives from the State of Florida, licensing fees and investment income, grants from health-related research and support organizations, and gifts from private foundations, corporations, and individuals.


According to this report the research, which has only been undertaken on mice, is now to receive funding from the National Institute of Drug Abuse.  No mention of Big Pharma being involved but I suspect it is as the NIDA wants a new category of drugs to combat nicotine addiction.

I wonder if there's a subunit in the brain for food addiction. Discovering that could solve the west's obesity problem.  But I doubt if that's high on the list of priorities as there's too much money still to be made from the diet gravy train (excuse pun).

Actually, I feel rather less of a second-rate citizen because of this research. I can now explain to friends my desire to smoke is because of a 'fault' in my brain. Nobody could fail to be sympathetic could they?

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

The Video In Full

I make no excuse for reposting this morning's post and making it easier for you to view what I consider to be a valuable contribution to the 'fake charities' debate.

Can I thank Sue for all her hard work and patience on how to download the video to here. Unfortunately, because I use Mac, I only managed it so far myself.  Without such kindness and help from other bloggers, (you too Microwave Dave), I'd be struggling into next week with this problem and even then it could well never be resolved.

Tweet

The Righteous Won't Like This

This is the chest X-ray of a person with bronchial cancer. According to Cancer Research 86% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking. One in three people develop cancer during their lives.

graph from cancer research

Note the number of breast and prostate cancers yet it's commonly thought that smokers, as Cancer Research publicise, are by far the largest group of lung cancer patients (where is the evidence?); thus putting excessive pressure on the NHS, not least through cost.

I'm sure those who think that smokers are the new lepers in society won't have been pleased with the front page of this week's Sunday Times. The newspaper has been passed on to me as I wouldn't give the Murdoch empire the time of day far less a penny.

As I can't provide a link I will type the article in full. It won't be good news for the anti-smoking Righteous who have the intense desire for smokers to be burnt at the stake but, at the same time, take their children to school in vehicles which have emissions which can cause serious bronchial problems in children. The same anti-smokers possibly use chemical sprays in their home which cause far worse problems that the occasional puff of smoke from someone smoking outside their home. After all, most smokers now smoke outside. I do. Not because I feel my smoking is a danger to anyone who visits me, but I am aware the smell of stale tobacco is unpleasant and also I've no wish to keep painting my home. We all know nicotine stains. So does bleach, Brasso, various kitchen and bathrooms cleaners, various car cleaners, yet smokers are the equivalent of the 'great unwashed'.

Here is the article:

New drug 'blocks' lung cancer

Smokers could be protected from lung cancer by taking a drug commonly used by diabetics, according to new scientific research.

The drug, metformin, appears to block the development of tumours. If proven, it would be the first drug capable of halting a smoking-related cancer before it takes hold, rather than treating it afterwards.

In theory, smokers could take it to cut their cancer risk - although it would not prevent smoking's many other health impacts.

Metformin's ability to block lung tuours has so far only been shown in animals and will have to be confirmed in humans. However, scientists say there is good evidence to suggest it could work.

In particular, there are already indications that smokers who take metformin for diabetes have a lower incidence of cancers.

"This wee-tolerated diabetes drug was able to prevent tobacco-carcinogen induced lung tumours," said Phillip Dennis, senior investigator in the medical oncology branch of the National Cancer Institute in America, at a recent conference.

His research will be formally published in the journal Cancer Prevention Research this week.

In Britain, which has 9.5m smokers, cigarettes are estimated to kill about 114,000 a year. About 43,000 of these die from smoking related cancers of which 25,000 are lung cancers.

In the research, Dennis treated mice with metformin for 13 weeks following exposure to the cancer causing agents found in tobacco smoke. They found the number of tumours in mice that had been given metformin by mouth fell by up to 50% and by injection 72%.

Such findings do not imply that smokers can escape ill health simply by taking a drug. Smoking also causes illnesses such as emphysema and cardiovascular problems. Metformin would not prevent these.

The Righteous will be so upset that money is being spent on research which has any connection to smoking. They never mention liver and kidney cancer of course because they're not yet on the agenda - that's for later when anyone who imbibes in a glass of two of anything alcoholic will become the new smokers. That, of course, will happen once all smokers have died from their habit.

How dare researchers spend good money on lung cancer tumours when most are self-inflicted? I can hear the indignation way up here in the north.

Tweet

Lawyers (in English Law) Required

Sometimes we have to fight for justice - all of us. Many of you will have read about the pensioner who was fined by Sandwell Council for dropping cigarette ash in the street. If you're not a smoker you perhaps don't have any sympathy, but I would ask you to consider the consequences of this behaviour from a council. What if you pulled your mobile out of your pocket and a receipt or a tissue happened to come with it without your knowledge. If you live in Sandwell, or one of these council areas which has these 'litter enforcement' officers.

Such a pity they're not around in my town on a Friday and Saturday night when the streets are litter with take-away cartons,chip wrappers and other rubbish, but it would appear that they're like traffic wardens and only work a 35 hour week.

The whole story is here and Ms Raccoon is asking for help from those qualified in English law. If you agree with the principle of her post then do give your support. For those who think Anna Raccoon is supporting 'one of her own' then you're wrong. She's a non-smoker but a woman who firmly believes in justice.

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

Common Sense

The shortest smoking ban in Europe has taken place in Bulgaria. All of three days! They come on a par with Spain which has a sensible approach to those who use nicotine.

Why can't the UK use such common sense or are they angling towards an alcohol ban soon? I doubt that myself but we never can tell as it's proven alcohol causes more serious problems than nicotine within our society.

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

Have We Become a Police State?

The sale of tobacco is legal in the UK and the main beneficiary is the Treasury. Yet, the use of tobacco is severely restricted, so much so that if you break the law you go to jail. We're all aware of this, so much so that smokers are now treated as would-be criminals.

Nick Hogan, 43, was sentenced to six months in prison for refusing to pay a fine imposed for flouting the legislation. A judge fined Hogan, of Chorley, Lancashire, £3,000 and ordered him to pay £7,236 in costs after finding him guilty of four charges under the Health Act 2006. Mr Hogan informed customers, in the two pubs he used to own, they had the freedom to choose whether or not to smoke.

If you're a Labour peer and were involved in an accident which left a man dead on the M1 in South Yorkshire, you serve 16 days in jail.

The anti-smoking lobby, ASH, is committed to stamping out smoking in this country. The government funds ASH. What I don't understand is why the government doesn't make smoking illegal then ASH could be disbanded, thus saving the taxpayer millions. Or is it preferable to keep the balance as it is, thus tobacco taxation continues and fines are a welcome addition to the government's coffers?

Have we become a police state - another, all too frequent, example of the invasion of our privacy. Do watch the video and decide for yourself.

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

Smoking and Men

I have to admit to battling with nicotine for the past couple of years and blogging has been a great help because I don't nip outside nearly as often as I did.  This video is one I've never seen.  Not to be viewed by the squeamish. 

Courtesy of NHS Blog Doctor

Tweet