Game: Chase The Antis
A recent post on a discussion board in this Facebook group has given me a chuckle. Someone named
“I think most smokers will know what I mean, when I say that since last July, smokers have been chased from pillow to post. We have been ostracized from society, we have been stopped from socializing with our friends, we have been told that we are un-clean, and that we stink, we are now being chased in the streets by council officials in case we drop the odd fag end, even though our streets are absolutely covered in chewing gum, which is almost impossible to clean off, and there are take-away wrappers thrown everywhere, none of that matters, because us filthy smokers have dropped a fag end.We are herded into little groups outside in the rain and cold, and if we are very lucky, we are allowed to stand in ghettos, which they aptly named, Smoking Shelters, which of course, offer about as much shelter as a paper umbrella in a force ten gale.
And, even though the law states that smoking is banned in all indoor public places, we still have our gangs of friendly little Hitler officials, enlarging on these rules, by stopping us from smoking in bus shelters, on open railways stations, and even railway forecourts, which are completely open. Private clubs are also included, even though these are clearly not “public places”.
You are not even safe from the Stormtroopers if you drive for a living, for they have even banned smoking in all company owned vehicles. So where can you smoke? Well you daren’t smoke in your own home, if there is an anti about. They go absolutely berserk, waving their hands around frantically in front of your face and coughing and spluttering. I find it very strange that they didn’t do this before last July, and also very strange that they don’t cough or splutter whilst walking along a high street full of heavy goods vehicles belting out their non stop fumes.
Anyway, I think you must all have the picture I am talking about by now, so how do we play the game?
1. Never refer to an ant-smoker by name, always call them an Anti.
2. Constantly tell them that they stink of B.O and sweat and stale beer.
3. If they chew gum, wave your hand in front of their face all the time they are talking.
4. When you fancy a cigarette, tell the anti to go outside because you are going to smoke.
5. If you are having a dinner party, make sure to invite all your smoking friends, and just one anti, and then all light up. Tell him or her that you are sorry, but they can go outside if they don’t like it.
6. If you have a garden and a decrepit old shed with no door and the roof hanging off, tell the anti that is the no smoking shelter, and they are welcome to go there while you are smoking.
7. If the anti has a car and you are offered a lift in it, insist on all the windows being open at all times, as you can smell the exhaust fumes which choke you and make you hair stink.
8. If you see an anti throw away any litter, no matter how small, report them straight away.
9. Never be a friend to an anti. Non smokers and anti smokers are two different things. Once an anti has been identified, he or she should be reported to all your real friends, and a large “Anti” sign nailed to their door.
I am sure you will be able to think up more rules for yourself, but these the basics for now.”
I’m encouraging everyone to take up this fascinating new game immediately! It has my full endorsement.
Related posts:
More Frikken’ Wacko Anti-Smoker Nut-jobs!
To Brainless Anti-Smokers 2=6,000
Why Joel Goodman is a Complete Fucking Moronic Retard.
Georgie Binks Wins the Fascist Bitch of the Day Prize!
Science Says: The Lungs of Long-Term Heavy Smokers Are Good Enough For You
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Breathe Morality
I Told You So! You Brainless Anti-Smokers!
Video Evidence of Out of Control Anti-Smoking Lunacy
You wanted proof that cigarettes and smoking can cause cancer?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107326.php
Or can harm a pregnant woman?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109463.php
Or this one on two particular chemicals that are culprits in cigarettes:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109059.php
So, now you’re spamm-vandalizing my blog with identical comments to multiple entries. Desperate are we?
“a nicotine-derived chemical”
Also found in bananas. Better not eat any of those Bob.
“polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons”
“Also a constituent of diesel fuel” Better not walk near the curb Bob.
The myth of smoking during pregnancy being harmful
Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:51 CDT
In about 1999 I was asked to analyze the data of pregnant women with respect to smoking for a major health insurance company. They were running a campaign to get pregnant women to stop smoking and they expected to find interesting data to support their case.
I used to teach college courses covering the topic. The text books said that smoking causes underweight premature babies. Because of this babies of smoking mothers are more likely to have birth defects. With alcohol, two drinks a day was considered safe, but with tobacco, there was no safe threshold. I thought this was rather strange. You smoke one cigarette while pregnant and you are more likely to have birth defects? Even for a hard core health fanatic that is difficult to believe.
Here is what was found in the data. Babies of smoking mothers average weight was 3232 grams (7.1 lbs.). Babies of non-smoking mothers averaged 3398 grams (7.5 lbs.). That is about a half pound difference and it is statistically significant. Seven pounds is a good healthy birth weight that does not set off any alarms. Babies are considered underweight if they are less than 2270 grams (5 lbs.). 4.5% of smoking mothers babies were underweight and 3.3% of non-smoking mothers babies were underweight. This difference is not significant. There is no indication here of a health risk from smoking based on weight.
The other risk factor is length of term. Normal gestation is 253 days. 4% of smoking mothers did not go to term and 7.8% of non-smoking mothers did not go to term. Smoking mothers did better than non-smoking mothers but the difference was not significant. There was obviously no risk from reduced term for smoking mothers.
Because the non-smoking mothers had heavier babies one would expect more C-Sections from the non-smoking mothers. There were about 20% more. This is significant at the .05 level but not the .01 level so you could argue the significance either way depending on your bias. The data here is limited because only 5% of pregnant women smoked but the trend for smoking mothers was toward less babies retained in the hospital, less C-Sections, insignificantly fewer pre-term deliveries and an insignificant increase in clinically underweight babies.
This data can be explained by assuming that when pregnant women are stressed, they self medicate to relieve the stress. Non-smoking women tend to eat more causing the baby to be larger and more difficult to deliver. This can also cause other problems. Smoking women tend to light up when under stress. This is less harmful to the baby than over-eating. For this reason smoking mothers tended to have better outcomes for baby and mother. They also cost less for the insurance company.
You might be interested in knowing that this information was not used. I was told that the medical insurance business is highly regulated by the government. The company was not allowed to tell the truth about these results even though it was better for the insurance company and for the patients.
I do not think these results suggest that women should start smoking when they get pregnant. I do think it indicates that it is very poor practice to try to get smoking mothers to stop smoking when they get pregnant.
About me
I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology and have worked in both research and teaching. I am a health nut and do not endorse smoking or care to be around people smoking. I was shocked by these results. My bias if any is certainly against these results. However I think it is horrible to withhold information form people and intentionally give them bad advice to advance a political agenda.
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!
It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):
http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/
(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.
[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
[7.181]).
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.
http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/co…
“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.