Thursday
Jan142010
Why Finland?
Thursday, January 14, 2010 I shall be discussing the Finland smoking story on the BBC Radio Wales lunchtime phone-in from 12 noon. Broadcasting House is ten minutes' walk from our office in Soho so there's just time for another cup of coffee (my fourth of the day) ...
BTW, does anyone have any idea why Finland should want to lead the way towards prohibition? Facts would be good but idle speculation is equally welcome.
See BBC report HERE.
Reader Comments (64)
Hi Simon
Just one idea... maybe it's because they haven't got as many paranoid clowns like you in Finland who start raving about 'state control' everytime they try to introduce a law aimed at protecting the health of children!
Best wishes and good luck with the interview!
Dizzy
PS - watch out for the secret cameras in the studio. They're watching you Simon! And don't drink the coffee because it's probably drugged!
Dizzy
Oh the children the children for gods sake will no one think about the children.
They always use that one before a liberty is removed .
The other favourites are paedophile or terrorist.
"Dont drink the coffee".
I reckon you already did mate.
Get a life.
I smoke I choose to smoke.
Get over it .
Dizzy -
Two brief points, I think:
a) 'Paranoia' is an IRRATIONAL fear or delusion. Nothing that Simon or his colleagues has ever said about the creeping cancer of State Control could ever RATIONALLY be described as THAT.
b) The Gestapo had no need of a top-heavy appparatus (much less, hidden cameras or drugs) to control the populace: instead, it relied for the most part on the willingness of a sufficiently large number of brain-dead patsies to inform on their fellows. The term 'Useful Idiot' was - as you know - coined in a somewhat different (but related) context.
Mind you, the Gestapo DID play its part (credit where it's due) in protecting all those nice Aryan children against the predatory instincts of those nasty hook-nosed Jews - with their little bags of sweets................
My speculation is that they are a small country trying to get themselves on the "world stage" and be a leader in something! Previously their claim to fame was Mika Hakkinen (World F1 champion) and also Kimi Raikenham (excuse the spellings if they are wrong!) and they are probably missing the attention as it all seems to have gone to another tinpot country called Iceland, albeit not for the best of reasons!
Joking aside though and more worrying is Nepal completely banned smoking everywhere about 3 years ago, which must have driven Joanna Lumley mad when she went there last year re the Gurkhas. It is not a country I will be visiting in the near or distant future or come to think of it Finland.
The probelem is though that the anti smoking disease is spreading faster than bird flu or swine flu and we are letting these do-gooders get away with it.
Well said Martin V.
Dizzy has named itself aptly.
Beware the little children Dizzy, that come the day they grow up, may creep up on you and pull out your life support, when they consider you superfluous to requirements.
he WHO is financed by contributions from member states and from donors. In recent years, the WHO's work has involved more collaboration; there are currently around 80 such partnerships with NGOs and the PHARMACEUTICAL industry'.
Pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money out of health issues. They misled the WHO on the swine flu pandemic and passive smoking for their own gain. They should not have that amount of control.
I was interviewed on air by Mike Parry and Andy Townsend on TalkSport today at 11.15 am for 15 minutes. Parry seemed more interested in having a monological rant than a debate.
He would not believe that I enjoy smoking, not bothered that my 19 year old daughter smoked and that smoking has risen since the bans in the UK and Ireland.
It seems smokers are the national sport at the moment.
Chas -
Quite so !
MY (presumptuous) advice is:
Be wary of ANY agency that has 'World' in its title, or is 'Global' in its aspirations.
VERY wary.
The New Imperialism is so much harder to oppose - tactically AND emotionally - than the Old.
Especially when it uses a Cuddly Panda as one of its many logos.
As to the Finns - weren't THEY the ones that fought Stalin's Communist Legions to a standstill ?
At least Stalin was a smoker.................
The Finnish government have been trying for years to cut down on the amount of drinking done by their citizens but to no avail. It is well known that the Finns are almost on a par with the Russians when it comes to vodka consumption. Maybe the government has decided to try and curtail smoking to deflect attention away from their failure to reduce drinking.
Quick joke. How many Finns does it take to change a light bulb?
Five. One to hold the light bulb and the other four to drink enough vodka until the room starts spinning.
[Hope not deemed racist or offensive].
Think 1`ll emigrate to Egypt!!, sounds lke heaven;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8433000/8433428.stm
Dave. It sounded like Parry is an alcoholic in the way he defended drinking alcohol.
More hilarious rantings from the bleating 'victims' of a society that is fed up of holding it's nose and sheltering its kids from your stinking, carcinogenic vapours.
You choose to smoke. We choose to throw you outside in the cold!
Get over it.
Ann wrote... "Beware the little children Dizzy, that come the day they grow up, may creep up on you and pull out your life support, when they consider you superfluous to requirements."
I'm so sorry. While I've enjoyed winding up this little lot of paranoid geeks, I feel I do owe Ann an apology...
Ann, my message has clearly sent you over the edge and I feel responsible. All I can suggest is calling for help. Don't worry - once they've got you settled the nightmares will go away.
In the meantime, why not have a fag and try to relax.
How many smokers does it take to change a light bulb...?
None. We're not changing any lightbulb just cos you ask us to. It's our life and you can't tell us what to do!
Fascist!
Freedom to Not Change Light Bulbs Now!
How many anti-smokers does it take to light a BBQ? None, because they are all afraid of little bit of smoke.
Sylvia the country is Bhutan not Nepal- and their ban on smoking has completely and spectactularly failed. People simply bought contraband.
And Dizzy please get a life rather than spout your complete garbage.
Chas I bet they cant even switch on an oven without wearing a space suit- oh Elf and Safety wont allow that now will it??
I wonder how anti-smokers would have coped in the 1940s and 1950s. Smoke filled rooms from coal fires and the smogs. It's amazing how millions of us lived through those times and are the healthiest generation ever.
That, I think is a lot of the problem Chas, we have lived through all sorts that today is supposed to kill us off, but we have come through it and, as you say, are the healthiest generation yet.
Whilst the government are more than happy to spend our money on big pharma and all the useless quangos, who, like the majority of politicians, do not have a clue what living in the Real World is all about, they manage to find a way of getting hold of the money needed to pay all the pensions that we, as the healthiest generation to date, require due to our longevity!
I truly believe that older people who have smoked most of their lives are more likely to drop dead within 6 months to a year if they give up smoking than if they carry on smoking. Unfortunately, now however, in order to continue smoking they are likely instead to die of pneumonia. This bloody load of facists we call politicians are determined to kill as many off as possible, one way or another to save on pensions!
We are now living too long, so Big Pharma are inventing vaccines for everything in order to kill us off.
Well, the bird flu and swine fly didn't amount to much, despite the billions of pounds spent on the vaccines; who knows, they may have been nothing but placebo's!
It is a very sad state when we are all so cynical about such things and government/politicians in particular! Unfortunately, that is the society this breed of politician has made us into.
Just thought I would transpose this comment into here. Talking of transpose, that is also a musical term - Sylvia, you missed the fact that one of the greatest world famous 20th century composers was Jean Sibelius, a Fin, he even wrote a very well known piece called Finlandia.
Anyway, here is the comment.
So, Finland are talking about completely banning smoking. One of my brothers had a Finish girlfriend for a while. He told me that Finland have the highest rate of suicide in Europe, and the highest rate of domestic violence. So, Finland are talking about completely banning smoking. They just don't get it do they.
Chas -
Re:
"It's amazing how millions of us lived through those times and are the healthiest generation ever."
Another irritating fact that is best ignored.
But I'm sure that Uneconomic Longevity WILL soon be featuring on the Government's hit-list of Things Requiring Eye-Catching Initiatives.
Maybe they'll start putting Fluoride in cigarettes ?
Now, THERE'S a thought................
It has never been made clear how Ireland, a country which has always been seen as pretty laid back as far as personal freedom is concerned, suddenly decided to outlaw smoking in public places.
Could it be that, in secret and behind the scenes, Ireland was encouraged by the EU to take the lead? ("Don't worry about the costs - we will support you all the way").
Are we, noting the Finnish project, to assume that we are seeing something similar? A bit of bribery and corruption?
What we need is a Climategate type thing to reveal what is going on behind the scenes. We nearly had such a thing when the Peers were shown to have been misled about the cost of screens to hide tobacco products.
The Finnish government must want to ruin their country. Tobacco smuggling is already a huge business, but to ban tobacco altogether is asking for trouble.
Their already high crime rate will go through the roof and what their citizens will be forced to smoke will be highly questionable.
Is this really for the sake of public health and the sake of their children?
The tobacco industry makes the multi-billion illegal drugs trade look like a dwarf.
Tobacco and smoking have been discovered. There's no way the clocks can be turned back several hundreds of years.
BTW Dizzy - if you've been following this blog, you'll notice that these comments are usually for debating - and we don't always all agree.
You, however, are doing what the usual anti-smoker does when they visit us - refusing to sensibly debate and just throw insults instead. Yet again, another anti-smoker shows their true colours.
Your comment "You choose to smoke. We choose to throw you outside in the cold!" is indefensible. It has caused, is causing, and will continue to cause death.
Are you actually stating that it is OK to kill people as long as you can have every building in the UK non-smoking, even though you have no intention of visiting every building in the country, seeing as you can choose where to visit?
I rather think 'Dizzy' is having us on.
At least, I HOPE so..............
Dizzy suits its name.
Junican -
The really frightening thing about 'Climategate' is that it demonstrated one of two things:
a) Politicians' complete IMPERVIOUSNESS to the Obvious Truth. Or,
b) Politicians' complete POWERLESSNESS to challenge a Demonstrable Lie.
This problem is compounded by the fact that Senior Politicians tend to be installed in SAFE constituencies, and so have little REAL fear of their electorates, whilst Junior Politicians - who DO entertain some worries about their position - are nonetheless MORE afraid of their party bosses (on whom they depend for promotion).
The fact that the Executive (in our system) recruits its members from the back benches gives it TREMENDOUS powers over policy and debate.
THIS is one part of the system that we badly need to change.
Something which Dan Hannan (who seems to have ten brain cells for every single one of Cameron's) has had the wisdom to acknowledge.
Junican, you hit the nail on the head there, of course Ireland was encouraged by Mr Brussels to take the lead in bringing in the smoking ban.
Ireland was a sitting duck for them when they did their psycological profile of vulnerable small countries.
At that time Ireland was the focus of europe with its unprecedented false wealth, based on a property bubble where the irish bought and sold houses to themselves, encouraged by an inept govt on the take, who were so used to taking backhanders didnt care where the next bribe came from.
Our then health man, Michael Martin who was busy trying to cover up a nursing home scandal at the time, was a prime target to bring in a smoking ban, which he did with unprecedented enthusaism.
It worked both ways, he got his failures diverted and became popular for making ireland 'world leaders' and showing the rest of the world the error of it ways. (however he's still hiding in the long grass the snake that he is).
The EU got their smoking ban ... and the rest is history!
Dizzy, I didnt realise I hit a sore point.
Dont be afraid of the little childred, just keep a smile on your face and your nose out of their welfare, and you'll be all right.
"We choose to throw you outside in the cold!" - Dizzy.
Dizzy,
I hate to break this to you but space is not only defined as inside and outside.
You know where that place called "outside" is? Where Dizzy sees that big yellow ball everyone calls the "sun" is? Well, that is a really,really,really,really big place and has lots and lot and lots of "insides" in it! Not just one inside but lots and lots and lots! When Dizzy is "inside", he is not in only one "inside", he is in one of many,many,many,many "insides".
More "insides" than all Dizzy's fingers and all Dizzy's toes! Yes many,many more than that! And because Dizzy can only be in one inside there are lots and lots of insides for everyone who is not Dizzy to be in! Insides for all the grown ups to be happy in! A happy ending!
The trouble with denying adults the choice over their own lifestyles means that bigots like Dizzy - a person obviously of very low intellect - is given moral justifcation to be abusive.
Dizzy - not everyone hates the smell of smoke which in itself it not harmful to you, children or anyone else.
I am sure there is probably something you stink of that I would find unpleasant but I am far too well brought up - by a smoker actually - to be quite as bad mannered as you in highlighting it.
The stench of zealotry does tend to stick in the nose but your time is nearly done. No-one wants the brand of prejudice that you are pushing.
The Govt should hang it's head in shame for giving so much power to little Hitlers like Dizzy who I assume must have no life of his/her own so gets off on interferring in others people's.
As an anecdote .
Here is an article about how the French deal with their smoking ban.
They totally ignore it.
I must brush up on my francais !
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1949817,00.html
And I must renew my passport.................
Oh you poor suckers, you ignorant fools, you stink to high heaven and you are hated by everyone, and you still try to argue with me as if you have the same intellect as me and that that you are normal. You will never be normal, you are inferior beings, and one day in the not too distant future you will exist no more.
Dizzy,
you are of course quite right.
Due to decades of smoking my willy stopped working and then fell off. But that does not matter because girls won't talk to me anyway because all my teeth have fallen out and my breath smells exactly the same as an ash tray.
Not that I could ever get to talk to girls seeing as I am so unfit I can't even walk down the street with out gasping for breath because the smoking has made my lungs turn black. I can't get a job because the smoking has made me go all stupid and in any case the oxygen tank does not look good in interview. Oh, Dizzy, oh sweet Dizzy, if only my breath was as sweet as yours, if only I was as charming and handsome and as clever as you. It makes me so sad that my life has been wrecked by the smoking. In my next life I want to be a higher being just like you! All people should be made to be just like you! Whether they want to be like you or not! You are my new role model! Your my new super Dizzy hero!
Blimey !
your beginning to sound like the MEKON from Dan Dare Dizzy.
Or perhaps the emporer Ming in Flash Gordon.
Fair play to you, Dizzy - you have given us an absolutely spot-on imitation of a stereotypical idiot anti-smoker. But don't you think the joke's wearing a bit thin now?
Laugh as much as you can now because when smoking is banned completely in this country as I can assure you it is going to be, you won't be laughing then. But I and millions of others will.
Shame Dizzy is such a coward as well. At least most of us on here are brave enough to use our real names.
I wouldn't bother responding anymore. Anyone can throw insults when they hide behind anonymity. I don't think Dizzy is worth the effort. Some antis are worth debating with. Dizzy isn't mature or intellectual enough.
Oh, Dear, Dizzy. A bit tired and emotional are we? Is it past your bed time? How about a nice cup of hot milk and a bed time story about how the government got rid of all the nasty horrid smokers and nobody ever got sick or unhappy again!
Dizzy - people like you will be rounded up, flogged and shot the way things are going. Then people like you will not be laughing - you will be squealing. You have been warned.
Sorry Simon to be slightly off topic but this is dynamite. I have just come across this paper that appears to be of published in the Lancet, I do not want to lose it.
"Molecular genetics of lung cancer in people who have never smoked."
"Patients with lung cancer who have never smoked are more likely to have mutations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase and have better response to its inhibitors than do patients with tobacco-associated lung cancer. Furthermore, the prevalences of mutations in KRAS and P53 differ for patients with lung cancer who have never smoked and those with tobacco-associated lung cancer. Genetic mutations seem to be more common in patients with tobacco-associated lung cancer than in never smokers. CURRENT EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE TWO TYPES OF LUNG CANCER ARE BIOLOGICALLY DISTINCT."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18598932?ordinalpos=1&itool=PPMCLayout.PPMCAppController.PPMCArticlePage.PPMCPubmedRA&linkpos=4
I hope Dizzy doesent get too dizzy when he reads Dave's article.
Dont get too hysterical old thing, I'm sure the men in white coats will come to take you away when the tablets run out.
Dave A.
Can you explain the significance?
@Junican
Non smokers who die of lung cancer contract the disease from other sources other than passive smoking.
Not only does it not back up the epidemiological evidence they now know the DIFFERENT process how non smokers contract lung cancer.
This is profound.
Dave A. - take a look at this also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19844277?
@K Klaus
Thamks very much!!!
haha Fredrik, your comment to Dizzy made me think of something. Me.
I am 59 next month and have been smoking on and off since I was 12. It genuinly worries me that I can go for long walks without a hint of breathlessness. My skin is reamrkably good for a man of my age. My dentist compliments me on maintaining good dental hygiene. I don't have a bad chest. I don't have a bad cough. I can't remember when I last had a cold. I don't get flu. I hardly ever go to the doctor. To top it all. I can still do this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwxnFm9mXUI enjoy!
ps I smoke about 30 a day
I must add this. The other day on twitter, a labourite was most concerned. Her grandparents had seen a picture of her and thought she was holding a cigarette. This was a family crisis, and she was trying to convince them that she was a non smoker.
One of her followers kindly pointed out that he had seen a close up of her hand, which proved she was a non smoker because there were no yellow stains on it.
hahaha for goodness sake, where do these all wise non smokers get their information from? When was the last time you saw a smoker with yellow fingers?
@Dave A.
I am still not sure that I understand.
Am I right in saying that what this research shows is that, if one reverses the logic, it is quite possible that ANYONE who contracts the disease Lung Cancer may or may not have a specific biological reason, which may or may not be smoking related. In which case, every incident of Lung Cancer needs to be specifically examined to see which biological process was involved.
If there are known biological processes which cause Lung Cancer, other than smoking, then these processes may be at work in ANY situation.
Is my interpretation correct? If it is, it would explain why so many people who have smoked all their lives do not develop Lung Cancer, of which there untold millions.
The reason that people get Lung Cancer is that they are biologically susceptible.
Is that correct?