The truth about plain packaging – The 3.4% myth

This entry was posted in Plain Packaging, Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to The truth about plain packaging – The 3.4% myth

  1. Ubique

    Deceiving the public in this manner is a crime. The bureaucrats and politicians responsible should be sacked.

  2. H B Bear

    Stick it up ’em Snic.

  3. Lem

    Lies, damned lies, and statistics, brought to you by the taxpayer funded bureaucrats of Canberra. Stick it in there with the unemployment figures.

  4. JC

    Excellent vid. loved the way he explained it so easily.

  5. JohnA

    Go Topher!

    Good to see you are working with Catallaxy.

  6. Some History

    Kudos to Topher and to you, Sinc, for keeping an eye on these lying miscreants of the political class and Public Health.

    While you scrutinize the economic shenanigans, I’ll provide information on the growing ugly consequences of the deranged prohibition (including robbery) crusade.

    Father of Terminally Ill Man Calls On Health Bosses To Let His Son Have A Fag

    The father of a terminally ill man yesterday called on health bosses to let his son have a fag at the hospital where he is being cared for. Forty-two-year-old Sean Major suffers from degenerative illness Huntington’s Disease, and until recently he was able to enjoy a cigarette in the grounds of Paisley’s Dykebar Hospital.
    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/father-terminally-ill-man-calls-6954500

  7. Some History

    Smoking has been banned on entire hospital premises, indoors and out. We’ve all seen the sight around hospitals – patients in their night attire on the street smoking a cigarette. They have to venture off the hospital premises, if they are able to, in whatever weather and onto side streets if they want a cigarette. The prohibitionist message – those that do not conform to antismoking edicts will be punished. It’s an appalling state of affairs.

    The Obama administration has been one of the most rabidly antismoking to date. One of the measures it has been pushing over the last few years is for the voluntary imposition of smoking bans in taxpayer-funded public housing. It’s now gone one step further. It’s now intending to impose a nationwide smoking ban in public housing. Some background:
    https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/proposed-us-nationwide-smoking-ban-in-public-housing/

    The first thing to note is that there is no evidence that the smoke from people smoking in their apartments poses any health threat to those living in other apartments. There are no studies that address health issues in this specific context. But that doesn’t matter. The prohibitionists simply use the irrelevant, concocted “evidence” of nonsmokers living with smokers, making it sound as though it is relevant. They’re engaged in this same sort of lying concerning outdoor smoking bans, too. The other thing to note is that public housing caters for those of low socio-economic status, many of them being elderly and/or disabled. If they didn’t have public housing, they would most probably be homeless.

    A light smoker might smoke, say, 10 cigarettes a day. Smokers, many elderly and/or disabled, will be required to go outside (and more than 25 feet from housing buildings) 10 times a day/night (many more times if they are heavy smokers) to protect nonsmokers from a nonexistent health “threat”. Each time they make the journey it puts them at [actual] risk of injury (e.g., falling), possible attack, and there are plenty of places in America where it gets lethally cold outdoors during winter. If they decide not to take these serious, immediate risks and decide to smoke in their apartment, they are in danger of being evicted. There is also the spectre of smokers being denied housing at the outset if they admit to being a smoker when applying for housing. In comments to the proposed law, one housing provider admits to already denying smokers housing even though this is illegal. See comment by “Patricia Winston” on the 6th January:
    http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=25;s=FR-5597-P-02;fp=true

    Those pushing for this ban demonstrate the typical insanity of prohibitionism. And insanity it is. Adding a further dimension to the insanity is that this derangement is peddled as “health promotion”.

  8. Some History

    Lahhh..deees and gennellmen…… drum roll please…… Brrrrrr…rrm Ching

    It’s Quiz Time

    In parts of the UK, which of the following couples would have the hardest time fostering/adopting children?

    a) Christian couple
    b) Couple where one or both are smokers
    c) Gay couple

  9. Simon/other

    Can’t Gays and Christians smoke too?

  10. Simon/other

    What always amazes me about prohibitionists debates is the total lack of insight into any aspect of what they are trying to achieve. If you talk about smokes, gear, piss or just good times in general it always makes those who do partake immediately want it and appreciate it. The harder it is to get, the more stigma you face, the more rewarding the end result is when you crack it. The tougher you make it to get then the tougher those getting become.

  11. Alfonso

    Some truth about the LDP concealed carry insanity.

    The LDP policy on concealed carry:
    “Those who wish to carry a concealed firearm for self-defence are entitled to be issued with a permit to do so unless they have a history or genuine prospect of coercion”.
    My summary of that policy is accurate…. ” universal concealed carry for all non criminals ( see history of coercion) without a psyche diagnosis who do the course.”?

    Dotty the lying creep doesn’t like the attention. Let’s hope it’s well publicised by Dave come election time.

  12. Peter

    Haha. I was in a smoking area of a pub two years ago in Richmond watching the last quarter of a football game on TV . Then click the TV went off. I went inside and asked a young lady behind the bar if we could have the TV back on til the game finished. She immediately recoiled in horror seeing the cigarette in my hand. She started seriously freaking out. I apologised and went back outside. 10 mins later 4 bouncers arrived and told me to leave the premises. Welcome to Melbourne !

  13. J.H.

    Well said and clearly said. Does some good videos this young fella.

  14. Tekweni

    I am not a zealot who has made banning cigarettes and smoking a driving force in my life. I do suffer from hay fever and in my youth and student days when I frequented clubs and pubs I had to live on anthistamines or suffer a streaming nose and eyes. The tablets that worked for me contained pseudoephedrine which is a precursor for making meth and can make you feel sick. I don’t support plain packaging though and I do support free will. However life is just that much more pleasant when I don’t have to dose up on tablets when I go out. And buying any drug with pseudoephedrine from a pharmacy has you being put through the third degree.

  15. Tom

    Excellent work, Sinc and Topher. There’s no lie the health Nazis won’t tell to conceal their lies and incompetence and justify the theft of extortionate levels of excise now being waged against smokers — of which I am not one.

  16. Pat Warnock

    I am a smoker of 55 years and I have been persecuted over the last few years not only by restrictions but by the continual tax rises taken by the government and spent on what? To me alcohol abuse is a more immediate danger to the community.

  17. I am the Walras, Equilibrate and Price Take

    Good work, am pleased to see Topher working with us.

  18. Some History

    Had a recent encounter with a rabid antismoking nut case.

    Setting: Outdoor dining area of a restaurant. It’s a place at which I’ve had lunch over many years. In the State in which I reside there is no ban (yet) on smoking in outdoor dining areas. This particular restaurant has divided the outdoor area into half smoking, half non-smoking.

    On this particular day I was having lunch with a friend at the usual table at the end of the smoking section. The outdoor area was pretty full. I had been there for well over an hour and had had maybe 4 cigarettes [I did notice that I was the only one smoking] At this point a group of 5, 3 men/2 women, sat at the end table of the non-smoking section, three tables away from me. They were at least in their fifties and, looking at the group after the following incident, seemed like a bland bourgeois brigade (BBB).

    The BBB hadn’t been there for more than 10 minutes and I was having a cigarette, chatting with a friend. As I was chatting I noticed out of the corner of my eye someone approaching my table and flapping their hand (yep, it was a “hand flapper”). As I looked around it was a woman from the BBB table that was standing a few feet from my table, still flapping her hand “displacing” non-existent smoke.

    As we made eye contact she spouted in an aggressive tone, “what you’re doing [smoking] is illegal”. I replied, with a smile, “it’s not”. She repeated emphatically, “it’s illegal!”. I again replied, with a smile, “no, it’s not”. At this point she decided to huff and puff back to her table. As she began walking away in self-righteous indignation, she left me with, “remember, it’s all about respect”.

    “It’s all about respect”?? This coming from an ignorant, neurotic, bigoted nitwit that went out of her way to confront a complete stranger and making baseless, inflammatory accusations.

    But little Ms Superior wasn’t finished yet. Back at her table consulting with her buddies, she called over a waitress to lodge a complaint about having to put up with someone smoking nearby. The waitress informed her that there was no smoking ban in the outdoor area and that the area was divided into smoking/non-smoking sections (clearly marked). This seemed to shut the group up of the overt whining.

    I was there for another 15 minutes. It crossed my mind that Ms Superior, being a stickler for “respect” [giggle}, might have made another visit to my table and apologized for her senseless outburst. Fortunately, I wasn’t holding my breath. Antismokers don’t do apologies. They only do explosions of [irrational] fear and hate, even with complete strangers.

  19. mundi

    Obviously the restaurant should be allowed to set whatever policies it wants.

    However may smokers seem ignorant of the smell and irritability of the smoke. It’s clearly not compatible with common law to blow smoke over people and prevent from from breathing clean air In a public area.

  20. Cannibal

    They were at least in their fifties

    There’s your problem right there. Late baby-boomers, so probably never had to grow up.

  21. .

    Alfonso
    #1913342, posted on January 12, 2016 at 7:44 am
    Some truth about the LDP concealed carry insanity.

    The LDP policy on concealed carry:
    “Those who wish to carry a concealed firearm for self-defence are entitled to be issued with a permit to do so unless they have a history or genuine prospect of coercion”.
    My summary of that policy is accurate…. ” universal concealed carry for all non criminals ( see history of coercion) without a psyche diagnosis who do the course.”?

    Dotty the lying creep doesn’t like the attention. Let’s hope it’s well publicised by Dave come election time.

    You’re an absolute lunatic Alfonso.

    You think law abiding, sane citizens shouldn’t have guns. Piss off and join the Greens.

    Here is a start, pal: http://greens.org.au/join

  22. Some History

    However may smokers seem ignorant of the smell and irritability of the smoke. It’s clearly not compatible with common law to blow smoke over people and prevent from from breathing clean air In a public area.

    Puhhh….ppp…p…..puhhhh….leeeezz!! Antismokers (misocapnists/capnophobics) have no clue, i.e., dingbat oblivious, as to how shallow, neurotic, bigoted, and obnoxious they are.

  23. Some History

    She immediately recoiled in horror seeing the cigarette in my hand. She started seriously freaking out.

    There are people that freak out – have an “episode” – just at the sight of something that looks like a cigarette and where there is no smoke.

    Inflammatory propaganda produces a nocebo (opposite of placebo) effect in the gullible and easily manipulated. A few decades of propaganda peddled as “science” has cultivated a few generations whose thinking on tobacco has been utterly addled. The prohibition crusade has enabled…. empowered a lowest common denominator of folk with anxiety disorders (e.g., capnophobia), hypochondria, somatizers, and bullying tendencies.

    There are people that have actual physical symptoms but rather than being produced by an externality (e.g., tobacco smoke), they are psychologically mediated (psychogenic) due to irrational beliefs/fear/hate about an externality. Physical symptoms can include dizziness, fatigue, eye/throat irritation, heart palpitations, headache, and pains in different parts of the body.

    The sheer size of the State-sponsored negative conditioning to aversion could well be described by the “environmental somatization syndrome”

    The Environmental Somatization Syndrome
    Göthe CJ, Molin C, Nilsson CG,

    Psychosomatics, 1995, Jan-Feb: 36 (1); 1-11
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7871128

    Patients with environmental somatization syndrome (ESS) believe that their symptoms are caused by exposure to tangible components of the external environment or by ergonomic stress at work. ESS is distinguishable by mental contagiousness and by the patients’ focus on the external environment as cause of the illness. The presentation is often polysymptomatic, and epidemic outbreaks may appear. The patients usually refuse alternative explanations of their symptoms and discredit and reject any suggestion of a psychogenic etiology. It is important to distinguish between hygienic problems and ESS problems, particularly when poor and inadequate hygienic factors are present simultaneously with an ESS epidemic.

    Psychogenic effects can also go by the term –
    “Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance” (formerly Multiple Chemical Sensitivity)

    Even the rabid Australian antismoker, Simon Crapman, has acknowledged that the promotion/protection of psychogenic effects regarding secondhand smoke could undermine Tobacco Control:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598484/

  24. Fat Tony

    Alfonso – “Some truth about the LDP concealed carry insanity.”

    Alfonso, if you don’t want the right to protect yourself and/or your family, there is absolutely no need for you to have any sort of weapon – just don’t try and prevent those who want that protection the right to do so.

    If you got off your lazy hysterical arse and did some research, you would find that those states (USA) which allow concealed (& open) carry have some of the lowest crime rates in the world.

  25. Zatara

    “The Obama administration has been one of the most rabidly antismoking to date.”

    Which is interesting as Obama smokes.

  26. Hydra

    However may smokers seem ignorant of the smell and irritability of the smoke. It’s clearly not compatible with common law to blow smoke over people and prevent from from breathing clean air In a public area.

    Puhhh….ppp…p…..puhhhh….leeeezz!! Antismokers (misocapnists/capnophobics) have no clue, i.e., dingbat oblivious, as to how shallow, neurotic, bigoted, and obnoxious they are.

    It is both right that antismokers are dingbat oblivious and that smoking is irritible (and that many smokers are ignorant of this and often deliberately blow smoke in people’s faces).

    I would defend the right of the BBB to do what they did for when you were in a non-smoking area. If you are in a smoking area, they should shut up and move away because it is a non-issue as you comply with the law and also the rules of the restaurant.

    I used to smoke when I drank, and it’s fine when you’re the smoker. But if you’re not, it smells terrible, gets into your clothes and skin, stings your eyes, and is a general annoyance.

  27. Some History

    “The Obama administration has been one of the most rabidly antismoking to date.”
    Which is interesting as Obama smokes.

    If he still smokes (debatable), he has been browbeaten by the administration to keep it hidden from the media. His smoking is at odds with the administration’s moralizing prohibition aspirations. If he does get caught smoking, he’ll go the standard “Forgive me. I relapsed. But I’ll keep trying and trying to beat this insidious “addiction””.

    The previous most rabid antismoking administration was Clinton’s. On Billy getting into power, Hilary banned smoking in the White House. But we know that Billy had other uses for cigars. Maybe he was even pushed to this alternative use given that he wasn’t allowed to light them. 🙂

  28. Some History

    I would defend the right of the BBB to do what they did for when you were in a non-smoking area.

    I get the feeling that antismoking nut cases also have a problem with reading/comprehension.

    I used to smoke when I drank, and it’s fine when you’re the smoker. But if you’re not, it smells terrible, gets into your clothes and skin, stings your eyes, and is a general annoyance.

    Sorry, Hydra, but you’re just blathering the standard antismoking rhetoric. History does not support the misocapnist’s case.

    From Bayer & Stuber
    “…..In the last half century the cigarette has been transformed. The fragrant has become foul. . . . An emblem of attraction has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.”
    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886

    This change from fragrant to foul has not come from the smoke which has remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one. Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory propaganda warps perception. Ambient tobacco smoke was essentially a background phenomenon. Now exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS) has been fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon like, say, sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they “can’t stand” the “stench” of smoke, or the smoke is “overwhelming”; there are now those, hand cupped over mouth, that attempt to avoid even a whiff of dilute remnants of smoke – even outdoors. There are those that claim that, arriving from a night out, they had to put all of their clothes in the washing machine and scrape the “smoke” off their skin in the shower. There are even those that claim they are “allergic” to tobacco smoke. Yet there are no allergens (proteins) in tobacco smoke to be allergic to.

    These are all recent phenomena born of toxic propaganda; it is an expanding hysteria. It says nothing about the physical properties/propensities of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization. Typical symptoms of anxiety disorder are heart palpitations, chest tightness, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, etc. These capnophobics (smokephobics) are no different to those irrationally attempting to avoid cracks in the pavement lest their mental world come crashing down. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda. It is the antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists and their toxic mentality and propaganda that have long been in need of urgent scrutiny.

  29. Some History

    …..as you comply with the law and also the rules of the restaurant.

    What about when the law is made an ass? What about when baseless laws are passed to shove a deranged ideological agenda on everyone?

    Hydra, I’m guessing that you’re not familiar with the sick, 400+ year history of antismoking. Maybe you should get informed.

  30. Mat

    There are those that claim that, arriving from a night out, they had to put all of their clothes in the washing machine and scrape the “smoke” off their skin in the shower.

    I don’t have a dog in this fight – I’m a non-smoker all my 50 years, but my entire family were smokers. In the ’70’s & ’80’s that’s just the way that things were. I do have to disagree however about the lingering smell of smoke in your clothes and hair back in the day – it really did stink. Keep in mind that almost everybody smoked in pubs and clubs, and some in some places you could barely see the length of the bar for the haze.

    Interestingly, I spend a lot of time with a friend who chain smokes rollies of chop-chop. We’re inevitably in reasonably close proximity in his fairly small workshop/studio for hours at a time, yet there is never any discernible odour of tobacco smoke on my clothes afterwards. I suspect that a lot of the odour that people complain of isn’t from the tobacco, but from the wide array of chemical additives present in a manufactured cigarette. My 2 cents.

  31. Some History

    “…but from the wide array of chemical additives present in a manufactured cigarette. My 2 cents.”

    Sorry, Matt, but misocapnists have been whining about the “stink” going back to King James I in his “Counterblaste to Tobacco”. There were no additives in tobacco in the early-1600s.

    Here’s an antismoking billboard (circa 1915) on the road leading into Zion City, Illinois. Zion City was a dysfunctional “utopian” community established in the early-1900s by John Alexander Dowie representing a so-called (questionable) “Christian” sect (Christian Catholic Church). Tobacco, alcohol, and gambling were banned within Zion.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldrevivalnetwork/2237569255

    I don’t think there were additives in tobacco at the time.

    Interestingly, post smoking ban in pubs, the two prevalent odours were body odour and the “sweet smell” coming from the urinals.

    “Rain Showtechniek, a Dutch company, now sells fake cigarette smells to Dutch bars and cafes.
    “People find that smells such as Mocha coffee, Havana cigars or cigarettes can be about good moods and different ideas of living well,” company spokesman Erwin van den Bergh tells Britain’s Daily Telegraph.
    Nevertheless, there’s another good reason for cigarette smells: “To mask the sweat and other unpleasant smells like stale beer.”
    [Link no longer works]

    “AS TOBACCO bans come into force and the air clears in Victoria’s hotels, patrons and staff are being exposed to other noxious smells at unprecedented levels.
    Beer-fuelled flatulence, burps and body odour are no longer masked by cigarette smoke and some, even non-smokers, are beginning to question the merits of the ban, along with the personal hygiene of fellow patrons.
    The owner of South Yarra’s Chasers nightclub, Martha Tsamis, said there had been a “strong stench” in her venue since July 1, particularly on nights when the dance floor was jammed with cavorting couples.
    “It’s terrible when they dance all night and work up a sweat. We’ve tried lavender oil in our fog machines, but even that doesn’t work,” Ms Tsamis said.”
    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/tobacco-ban-blows-ill-wind-as-pubs-scent-new-dilemma/2007/07/19/1184559956562.html

  32. Some History

    (cont’d)
    “The smell of freshly mown grass could be pumped into pubs to mask the foul odour of
    stale beer, sweat and drains that was previously disguised by cigarette smoke.
    Ocean breezes, leather and, perhaps surprisingly, tobacco smoke are some of the
    aromas being tested by Mitchells & Butlers, which manages 2,000 pubs.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-473346/Pubs-pump-scent-freshly-mown-lawns-mask-smell-stale-beer-sweat.html

  33. Some History

    Apologies, Mat…… “Matt” should have read “Mat”.

  34. rich

    I spend a lot of time with a friend who chain smokes rollies of chop-chop. We’re inevitably in reasonably close proximity in his fairly small workshop/studio for hours at a time, yet there is never any discernible odour of tobacco smoke on my clothes afterwards. I suspect that a lot of the odour that people complain of isn’t from the tobacco, but from the wide array of chemical additives present in a manufactured cigarette. My 2 cents.

    That has been my experience as well. A kung fu teacher I visited in China smoked his pipe and mixed his own pipe mix. It was floral and mildly sweet or fragrant and quite bearable, while his students around the corner smoked their cigarettes and had their characteristic smell. It may not be additives but the different mixtures definitely have different properties that decide whether or not the smell is palatable to non-smokers.

    These are all recent phenomena born of toxic propaganda; it is an expanding hysteria.

    I recall sitting in the smoking section of a McDonalds in Tokyo to accomodate a friend who smokes. It was unpleasant to eat food because my eyes were stinging, it was hard to breath and the taste was gone. It was similar late night with another friend in Hong Kong at another smoking venue.

    I don’t think tear gas or smoke bombs are effective because of psychological issues only. There are physiological effects to breathing in smoke, including tobacco smoke. Activists overstate the effect, but I feel that you have understated them.

  35. Ragu

    Interestingly, I spend a lot of time with a friend who chain smokes rollies of chop-chop. We’re inevitably in reasonably close proximity in his fairly small workshop/studio for hours at a time, yet there is never any discernible odour of tobacco smoke on my clothes afterwards. I suspect that a lot of the odour that people complain of isn’t from the tobacco, but from the wide array of chemical additives present in a manufactured cigarette. My 2 cents.

    Ah, no. The difference between to two is the method and length of time the tobacco has been fermented. Crack open a tailor made and the leaf is a golden colour and dry, the rolly baccy is a brown colour and still moist.

  36. Some History

    I don’t think tear gas or smoke bombs are effective because of psychological issues only. There are physiological effects to breathing in smoke, including tobacco smoke.

    It may come as a shock but if you live in an urban area, you’re breathing in constituents of smoke regularly (e.g., vehicle exhaust). If you’re in a kitchen or restaurant, there’s cooking smoke, possibly even candle smoke. During winter, you might be in a pub/restaurant that has an open indoor fire….. yep, you guessed it, there’s from smoke there, too. According to you, people should be in a constant state of quasi-blindness. Maybe I’ve just been extraordinarily lucky having never been bumped into.

    Activists overstate the effect, but I feel that you have understated them.

    I’m sure you’ve seen movies and documentaries pre-1990s (before the current antismoking hysteria hit) when smoking was commonplace. How many hand-flappers or hand-cupped-over-the-mouthers have you seen in this non-antismoking period? According to you there must have been loads of teary-eyed nonsmokers, barely able to see, fumbling and stumbling about from the tobacco smoke. But I doubt that you’ll pick any.

    Now you’re equating typically encountered tobacco smoke with tear gas and smoke bombs? That is the psychological component. Maybe, when confronted with riotous demonstrators, police should be instructed to dispense with expensive tear gas and go for smoking a few cigarettes in close proximity to said protesters. This should render them teary-eyed and effectively blind. [For heaven’s sake!]

    Rich, don’t underestimate the power of psychogenic and bandwagon/“contagion” effects. There are tests that can distinguish whether effects are physiological or psychological. You’ll never hear about them in the current antismoking hysteria. They can only harm the prohibitionist agenda.

  37. Mat

    Fair enough Some History, I can’t disagree with you about the kinds of unpleasant aromas that cigarette smoke masks – I worked the doors on various clubs and pubs in my younger days. And having owned a health club for several years, I know just how ripe a roomful of sweating punters can get. Adequate ventilation was a constant issue. But my response was to the lingering smell that cigarette smoke leaves in your clothes. If you are a regular smoker you may well be unable to notice the smell, but non-smokers can and do. As to whether or not that can be described as a stink depends on the person describing the odour. I personally regard it as stale and unpleasant, but you may disagree. My comment on the chop-chop is just a suggestion based on my own observations – Ragu has an alternate explanation. Anyway, I personally think that the current demonisation of smokers by the nanny statists is yet another example of the lying, thieving hypocrisy that is corroding western civilisation. Cheers.

  38. Some History

    Thanks, Mat, for your considered comment. You’re not an antismoker (misocapnist); you’re a reasonable nonsmoker [there are even nonsmokers that like the aroma of any tobacco smoke]. There’s a vast difference between the two.

  39. Alfonso

    Think about it this way Liberts.
    Statistically maybe two thirds of the adults in any given street of houses in Australia will have a concealed carry handgun permit if they desire it under LDP rules. The lying creep isn’t denying it any more. Progress.

    Should be a winner….when Australian voters understand which of their mutant neighbours are going to not just be armed but concealed carry armed, I’m thinking the LDP Canning result will look like a victory.

  40. Some History

    Earlier QUIZ.
    In parts of the UK, which of the following couples would have the hardest time fostering/adopting children?

    It would seem that homosexuals would have the clearest run at fostering/adopting. From the following, Christians could get into hot water if they “manifest” their beliefs regarding homosexuality. Couples must [enthusiastically] promote the “gay” lifestyle to children they care for.

    Christian couple lose foster ruling over views on homosexuality

    Eunice and Owen Johns, aged 62 and 65, from Oakwood, Derby, went to court after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a “homosexual lifestyle” was acceptable.
    The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers but withdrew their application, believing they would never be approved because of the social worker’s attitude to their religious beliefs.
    Today they asked judges to rule that their faith should not be a bar to them becoming carers, and the law should protect their Christian values.
    But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation “should take precedence” over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.
    Outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, where the decision was given, Mrs Johns stood alongside her husband as she said: “We are extremely distressed at what the judges have ruled today.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8352017/Christian-couple-lose-foster-ruling-over-views-on-homosexuality.html
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8353180/Foster-parents-defeated-by-the-new-Inquisition.html

    Foster parent ban: ‘no place’ in the law for Christianity, High Court rules
    “Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster
    carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong.
    The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values.
    In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity”.
    Campaigners for homosexual rights welcomed the judgment for placing “21st-century decency above 19th-century prejudice”. Christian campaigners claimed that it undermined the position of the Church of England.
    The ruling in the case of Owen and Eunice Johns, from Derby, is the latest in a series of judgments in which Christians have been defeated in the courts for breaching equality laws by manifesting their beliefs on homosexuality.”

  41. Some History

    (cont’d)
    Christians could get a rough ride in fostering/adopting but those that smoke have the hardest time, put on a par with criminals, being completely barred from adopting children under 5.

    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/fostering-ban-for-smokers-995594
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/smokers-to-be-banned-from-fostering-and-adopting-by-councils-1-1145631

  42. classical_hero

    As an asthmatic I am all for getting people to stop smoking, but what happened with plain packaging is just nonsense and in general the smoking rates were going down anway, so what we need is more social pressure to prevent people from starting up smoking and on those who already smoke.

  43. Some History

    …….so what we need is more social pressure to prevent people from starting up smoking and on those who already smoke.

    That’s the standard prohibitionist slogan. There it is on an 1867 “snake oil” cure for smoking:

    Antismoking hysteria was rife in America in the late-1800s/early-1900s. There were all sorts of deranged, baseless claims made about the “detrimental effects of smoking”. There was also a plethora of snake-oil “cures” for smoking. For example, there was
    Ballou’s Tobacco Disinclinator from 1867
    Interestingly it made these claims, without basis, back in 1867:
    “That the use of Tobacco shortens human life from Five to Twenty years, decreases manly vigor in the same ratio, causes a majority of the sudden deaths attributed to heart disease, and renders the subject more susceptible and less able to withstand any disease, is the opinion of our most eminent physicians. How shall we rid ourselves of this accursed habit, and prevent the uninitiated from falling into it? …..”
    http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3c02485/

    So, CH, you’re for some more “denormalization/demonization/leperization” of smoke/smoking/smokers? You’re a prohibitionist tosser. No, we don’t need any more damage from pontificating prohibitionist ponces. They need to be outed for the very considerable mess they’ve created…. again… with the full support of the State.

    “As an asthmatic…”

    So what? Why do you even need to make this point? Are you aware that there are asthmatics that smoke? Did you know that asthmatics are also one of the groups most prone to psychogenic effects (e.g., antismoking nocebo)? Are you aware that as smoking and exposure to ambient smoke has declined, the incidence of asthma has increased?

  44. classical_hero

    Smoking only ever causes harm and there is no benefit to any society. Any one who smokes quite frankly is an idiot, but those who are asthmatics are incredibly stupid. The point being is that once you habit affects others them it is no longer your problem but others also and as an asthmatic any cigarette smoke or the like makes me sick and why should people like me have to suffer because of others habits? Smoking is a social negative and should be treated as such by society in general, People are not free to harm others, which smoking does.

  45. .

    Smoking only ever causes harm and there is no benefit to any society. Any one who smokes quite frankly is an idiot, but those who are asthmatics are incredibly stupid.

    Do you realise that nicotine acts like some anti asthma drugs?

    Nicotine is not great for the pulmonary or cardiovascular system, but it has anti inflammatory properties.

    Two papers on the topic:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18490768

    J Immunol. 2008 Jun 1;180(11):7655-63.
    Nicotine primarily suppresses lung Th2 but not goblet cell and muscle cell responses to allergens.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11422156

    Clin Exp Allergy. 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14.
    Does tobacco smoke prevent atopic disorders? A study of two generations of Swedish residents.

  46. rich

    The point being is that once you habit affects others them it is no longer your problem but others also and as an asthmatic any cigarette smoke or the like makes me sick and why should people like me have to suffer because of others habits?

    Why do you or the state get to nanny other people on private property? Their lives are none of your business.
    Perhaps in a public space government has purview to regulate the commons, but on private private property it’s only the proprietor’s business. It’s like me ruling that your stamp collecting is an unproductive activity and that you should have your stamps confiscated- people deserve

    Statistically maybe two thirds of the adults in any given street of houses in Australia will have a concealed carry handgun permit if they desire it under LDP rules.

    Angry Alfonso, would you rob one of these houses? You’re free to try- visit Plano Texas, guess which house doesn’t have armed residents and try to rob it. Let’s see if you are right.
    Anyway what does your thread derail have to do with smoking?

    According to you there must have been loads of teary-eyed nonsmokers, barely able to see, fumbling and stumbling about from the tobacco smoke.

    No I never said that. You are verballing me.

    What I am saying is that saying that there are no phyisological effects from smoke inhalation (that it is all nocebo and psychological) is an absurd proposition. I jogged along a busy roadway (read: parking lot) in Jakarta recently and found it very unpleasant, and when I got home I wiped the soot from my brow. It is similarly unpleasant for a non-smoker to be in a room expressively designated for smoking as an enclosed space, with very high concentrations of smoke. Just like tear gas creates a physiological reaction, just like an “every table is a smoker in an enclosed space” makes it suffocating for non-smokers.

    As I said, I didn’t mind the smoke from that teacher’s pipe because of its floral bouquet nor recently a friend who had a vaper. It’s a function of smell (which is partially psychological) and concentration (which is physiological).

  47. .

    Alfonso
    #1913794, posted on January 12, 2016 at 3:13 pm
    Think about it this way Liberts.
    Statistically maybe two thirds of the adults in any given street of houses in Australia will have a concealed carry handgun permit if they desire it under LDP rules. The lying creep isn’t denying it any more. Progress.

    No no Alfonso, you illiterate believer in eugenics. You called most of Australia’s populace “mutants” on another thread.

    Clearly you are lying, and ought to join the greens.

    Here go, pal:

    http://greens.org.au/join

  48. Ellen of Tasmania

    Well, History, you didn’t see me watery eyed, stuffed and complaining in any restaurant or pub because I simply didn’t go into them. I don’t approve of the laws that ban smoking as I don’t think it’s the government’s business. Individuals & companies can make up there own minds about what they want to allow on their own premises.

    I don’t doubt your ‘nocebo effect’ does indeed exist, and you would be foolish to doubt that some people have genuine sinus or breathing problems that are exacerbated by, among other things, cigarette smoke.

  49. Alfonso

    Hee, hee….you go Girl.
    The voters will be ecstatic with Road Rage Reg three doors down getting concealed carry.
    I can’t wait for this to be general knowledge.

    Let’s see if we can’t help the lying creep disseminate LDP policy …….widely.

  50. .

    Sure Alfonso, calling millions of people “mutants” will really endear you to them.

  51. Alfonso

    Yep, operational handgun mutants.

    Now sell the message that LDP rule compliant Road Rage Reg three doors down is a winner with his S&W M&P flat carry 9.

    Desperation sets in for the lying creep?

  52. .

    How millions of Australians are “mutants” Alfonso?

    Please stop lying and apologise.

  53. Alfonso

    Who knows the extent of mutancy. Widespread indeed.

    But rule compliant Reg three doors down is one, and you’re giving him concealed carry.

    You and your ideological LDP coffee club creeps should be ashamed of yourselves.

    You know that when / if Dave is ever hammered about this during the election he’ll start to back down from LDP rule compliant Road Rage Reg, don’t you Champ?

  54. .

    Keep spreading the word you think most people are too dumb to make decisions for themselves, Alfonso.

    You’re a great asset to the communist Greens.

  55. Some History

    Smoking only ever causes harm and there is no benefit to any society.
    That’s standard prohibitionist blather.

    Any one who smokes quite frankly is an idiot, but those who are asthmatics are incredibly stupid.
    That’s standard misocapnist bigoted blather.

    CH, you are a neurotic, bigoted, prohibitionist tosser, spouting all of the standard slogans.

    …..why should people like me have to suffer because of others habits?

    Sorry, CH, your thinking is a creation of the time. Until the current antismoking crusade, any form of typically encountered smoke (cooking, heating, lighting, tobacco) was not considered even a “trigger” for asthma. But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that tobacco smoke is one of your “triggers”. The problem is not the smoke. It’s not a general propensity of highly dilute tobacco smoke to trigger breathing difficulties. The problem is your asthma. Your physical system is failing to do what a normally functioning system can do. A normally functioning physical system has no such problem.

    This is just one of the “inversions” that’s occurred when prohibitionists, mentally dysfunctional themselves, are given to “educate” the public. We now have people with physical ailments that completely overlook the fact that they have a physical ailment, considering themselves to be “normal”, attributing entire “causation” reflected through their physical ailment to externalities. It’s quite extraordinary.

    CH, you’re not suffering because of other people’s habits. You’re suffering in the presence of tobacco smoke because your physical system, at least, is crook; it’s failing to do what a normally functioning system can do.

    You next step is as perverse. Because you have a problem with tobacco smoke, whatever its root, you demand that everyone desist from smoking to accommodate your problem.

  56. Some History

    Asthma: just believing an odor is harmful “could trigger airway inflammation”
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/280049.php

  57. Alfonso

    “most (try many) people are too dumb” and judgement deficient to be carrying concealed handguns. Correct.
    The election will see how much support you have to allow Road Rage Reg three doors down to concealed carry his 9 mil.
    Tears before bedtime for lying creep I fear.

  58. Some History

    Suggestibility in asthmatics has been known for a long time. The question is why all of this research has been vanquished to promote antismoking hysteria.

    “Psychological Factors in Asthma….” Cohen, S,
    Postgrad Med J. 1971 August; 47(550): 533–540.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2467244/?page=4

    Direct quote from the above:
    “Luparello et al(1968) measured changes in airway resistance directly by body plethysmography. They showed that asthmatic subjects reacted with increased airway resistance when given nebulized saline to inhale and told it was the allergen the patient had previously stated was associated with his attacks. 19 of 40 asthmatics showed a significant increase in airway resistance and 12 developed attacks of bronchial spasm which were reversed with an inhaled saline placebo.
    “In a later study (Luparello, 1970). suggestion alone was shown to have a powerful effect on the bronchi. In this study, isoprenaline and carbachol were each presented to 20 asthmatic subjects by inhalation. Each drug was presented twice under double-blind conditions. In one presentation, the subject was told that it was a bronchodilator that would open his airways and make it easier to breathe and in the other, he was told it was a bronchoconstrictor. The suggestion produced significant changes in response to the drugs in the direction that had been suggested.”

    This leads the author (Cohen) to opine about studies on the subject of conditioning that showed that hay fever sufferers who knew a particular flower caused attacks could get an attack by merely being shown a paper imitation of that flower. Citing Vaughn, 1939 and an 1886 (not a typo) study by MacKenzie.

    Per “Anxiety Reduction in Asthma” Kinsman et al, Psychcosom Res, 1980
    http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/42/4/397.pdf

    Luparello’s findings were repeated by:
    Spector et al “Response of asthmatics to methacholine and suggestion,” Am Rev Resp Dis, 113; 1976
    Strupp et al, “Effects of suggestion on total respiratory resistance in mild asthmatics,” Psychosom Res, 18; 1974
    Phillipp et al “Suggestion and relaxation in asthmatics,” Psychosom Res 16; 1972

  59. .

    Alfonso
    #1914050, posted on January 12, 2016 at 6:49 pm
    “most (try many) people are too dumb” and judgement deficient to be carrying concealed handguns. Correct

    .

    Here you go, champ:

    http://greens.org.au/join

  60. .

    The question is why all of this research has been vanquished to promote antismoking hysteria.

    Actually SH any of the articles I have found or you have shown me, which show any health benefit of smoking, isolated, partial or otherwise, are hard to come by.

    It is pure intellectual dishonesty. Science? The cause is more important than science!

  61. Alfonso

    My work here is done.
    Dotty is embarrassed, ashamed and silent.
    LDP rule compliant Road Rage Reg has a wee smile.
    Time for a Becks.

  62. .

    Embarrassed? You called most people “mutants” who are below you illiterate stupidity.

  63. rich

    Dotty is embarrassed, ashamed and silent.

    Not really. You just sound like a crazy person that can be safely ignored, who somehow believes that anger is a measure of piety. I don’t appreciate being called a mutant or regarded that I cannot make my own decisions as an adult: I can see why you project that onto others if you behave so deranged to prove your own point. And you’re derailing a thread which has nothing to do with concealed carry.

  64. Some History

    It is similarly unpleasant for a non-smoker to be in a room expressively designated for smoking as an enclosed space, with very high concentrations of smoke. Just like tear gas creates a physiological reaction, just like an “every table is a smoker in an enclosed space” makes it suffocating for non-smokers.

    I’m assuming that you’re not aware that you’re doing it. People’s experience is subjective. You tell me that you have a problem with tobacco smoke, even if I think it’s most probably psychogenic, that’s OK with me. Your experience is your experience. What I do have a problem with is when you shift from your experience to then speaking for all nonsmokers, that your experience is objective and indicative of all nonsmokers.

    I was a nonsmoker at a time when smoking was commonplace. I’ve got to tell you that I have no recollection of indoor ambient tobacco smoke ever….ever… being a problem, even a minor problem, even a point of discussion. The same can be said for other nonsmokers around me at the time. Ambient tobacco smoke was an entirely background phenomenon. I certainly did not see any nonsmokers, including myself, “suffocating” in typical indoor smoking surrounds. I’d say that history would bear this out. Again, go look at movies/docos pre-1990s.

    We now have people complaining about wisps of smoke in outdoor dining areas. They’re whining about someone smoking 20 metres ahead of them on the street. They’re whining about someone smoking 50 metres away in the park. They’re whining about someone smoking half a mile up the beach and demanding “protection”. We’re dealing with a psycho-emotional problem here that’s been fostered/normalized by prohibitionists’ fear and hate-mongering and not the physical propensities of tobacco smoke.

    Lost in all of this is the conflating of unpleasantness/bother/annoyance and harm. Things don’t get banned because some people don’t like something. Even the prohibitionists that started the current crusade understood this. That’s why they went to great lengths to concoct indoor ambient tobacco smoke into a “health hazard” (harm) requiring public policy protection. And the hazard had to be aligned to effects on normally functioning physical systems, not people that are medically unwell; the benchmark for public policy was demonstrable effect on normally functioning systems, not people carrying illnesses, e.g., asthma. Society is not an extension of the hospital. We now have people speaking of “unpleasantness/bother/annoyance”, most probably shaped by the hysteria of the time because it simply wasn’t seen pre-prohibition crusade, as if it is harm. It’s not.

  65. rich

    Your experience is your experience. What I do have a problem with is when you shift from your experience to then speaking for all nonsmokers, that your experience is objective and indicative of all nonsmokers.

    And your delusion is your delusion. Try sealing yourself in your garage and leave the engine on with those sweet fumes, or going to an asbestos filled building and scraping the bits off. Even now I’m wearing a mask because inhaling solvents when I airbrush things in an enclosed might change my mood for the better, but still presents a health hazard. There is a psychological component to it, yes, but there is a physiological component to it too.

    I’m happy to accept that the link between passive smoking and lung cancer has been falsified, but to say that all effects from inhaling particulates is a “nocebo” is a fantasy. As a non-smoker ages ago, you may also note that since smokers are “pariahs” now, staying in a room where smokers congregate to smoke (every table a smoking table in an enclosed space) likely didn’t exist when you when “smoking was common place”, as a function of concentration. Or maybe some of those diners were too polite to say, and are quietly happy that now they can eat without their meal being interrupted by smoke.

    I don’t have a fit when I stand next to my friend outside who has a smoke in front of his car, nor one person three tables down. But for those who smoke or those who are in close proximity to them all the time in enclosed spaces or still air, I’m sure that the person with the fresh air is healthier in the long term, just like a person who lives on a farmstead rather than Beijing or Kuala Lumpur enjoys better air and better health from less smog by automobiles. I have no doubt that some of those precious petals are overreacting an having psychological trigger episodes, but to say that that all the physiological effects are a nocebo is an absurd proposition.

  66. Some History

    Try sealing yourself in your garage and leave the engine on with those sweet fumes, or going to an asbestos filled building and scraping the bits off.

    Sorry, Rich, you’re wobbling all over the place…. again. Earlier, you equated ambient tobacco smoke to tear gas and smoke bombs. Now you’re equating it with an engine running in a closed garage and asbestos. Have you ever heard of the critical toxicological idea of dosimetry? I know that antismokers have serious difficulties getting their minds around this concept. You do understand that a running engine in a sealed garage would produce the equivalent of, at least, tens of thousands of cigarettes in minutes. It’s actually a lethal hazard; it will kill you in minutes. It’s how some people suicide in a matter of minutes. I don’t know of any cases where someone has said, let alone succeeded, “I’m going to bump myself off tonight by spending ten minutes in a smoking-permitted bar”.

    Really, Rich, the analogies you’re using are terrible. Low dosages of what in high dosages can be lethal are not problematic for a well functioning physical system. Concerning air, the lungs are self-cleaning. A small cough up of phlegm can clear weeks of breathing all sorts of things at low dosages.

    Rich, I really do think you’re trying to reconcile physical and psychogenic effects. But I don’t think you currently understand enough about some basic chemistry, the potency of psychogenic effects, the psychology of irrational fear and aversion, bandwagon/contagion effects, or the modus operandi of prohibitionism.

  67. rich

    Low dosages of what in high dosages can be lethal are not problematic for a well functioning physical system. Concerning air, the lungs are self-cleaning. A small cough up of phlegm can clear weeks of breathing all sorts of things at low dosages.

    I guess you and I will disagree what a high dosage is and whether it’s enough to cause irritation. I don’t spend hours in smoky rooms so perhaps I’m not desensitised to it as you might be, such as a person living next to a train track no longer hears the train. If this is the closest I’ll get from you that there are physical as well as psychological consequences from inhaling smoke and particulates, and I did say earlier that it’s a function of concentration.

    Don’t get me wrong; I don’t care if people smoke on private property, nor do I care for the health of the foolish nor nannying them. Saying it’s “purely psychological” though is a little far fetched. I’m the first one to hoe into people for having MSG psychological issues, but I’ve had items that have been spiced with too much MSG myself and thought, “hey wait a second, this feels weird something is not right here.” I’ll rest my case here and leave you to your crusade.

  68. .

    rich did you read the pages I put up from NIMH? I smoke now and sometimes I smoke to alleviate hayfever.

  69. rich

    rich did you read the pages I put up from NIMH? I smoke now and sometimes I smoke to alleviate hayfever.

    I haven’t read it, but I am neither disputing that it assists your hayfever nor that the link between passive smoking and lung cancer has been falsified, nor the contention that the effect of inhaling second-hand smoke is negligible (an argument I would accept). The debate was whether all negative effects from smoking to nearby non-smokers are purely psychological or if there is a physiological component.

Comments are closed.