Smoking

Original posting, January 2006

Polonium-210

And on it goes...

By 2008, the UQ (aka UK) could be a largely 'smoke-free' zone. The government has said it will introduce a smoking ban in almost all public places in England. But only enclosed areas, not parks and streets or any open AND communal public place. A typically cynical half-way measure. The appearance of doing something, but not achieving much. 2008? Largely? Almost? Zone? I am still waiting for a completely smoke-free country (2006). How many have to die before this happens? The children of smoker parents. Real health can only be improved by the outright banning (outlawing) of tobacco in all its different forms and guises. The loss of revenue can assure smokers that this will NEVER happen.

Make no mistake or be under any delusion about smoking: nicotine (maybe) doesn't itself kill, but it is the hook to continue indulging in the practice. It is the smoke that is highly toxic. The smoke contains carcinogenic compounds. Lots of them. Cigarette smoke will reduce the level of life supporting oxygen and increase the amount of poisonous carbon monoxide. Arteries will harden and lead inevitably to serious cardiovascular problems. Bottom line: very poor day-to-day living health and the prospect of a slow and miserable death. A very lonely death.

The health of the people? Too much power and money are at stake. It is so clear that nobody in government cares. Government is the beneficiary. The ‘custodians’ of our tax revenue. There’s more money brought in (a lot more) through tax than is expended on the aftercare. Remember, those smokers still alive and nearing retirement are contributing more cash to the Government. When you retire (if you’re fortunate enough to stay alive, but in inevitable poor health) you wouldn’t survive very long and you’d be cheap to look after for a short time only.

Lung cancer caused by tobacco is not stopped, but cholera was under control very quickly. Why? There's no money to be made in sudden death. Only by taxation from the 'long-lived' causes of death.

It used to be ‘to die before you get ill’. That hasn’t changed much, whatever the spin. Sickeningly, the tobacco industry (legally peddling their poison) is always on the lookout for new markets. If not the kids, the younger the better as the expected lifespan is greater though you’ll still die young, of course, then China, perhaps. A growing market with the illusion of becoming wealthier. Watch the cost go up in these countries over the next few years.

There’s still a lot of talk about greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (the climate change debate), but nothing about the deadly smoke being released into the atmosphere. Maybe not as much as exhaust fumes from cars, but which is the more poisonous? Like trying to determine whether cyanide or arsenic is the more poisonous. Who cares? They both kill!

And by the way: when you stop working you contribute a lot less tax. So, less in and you won’t be missed. Those working pay more tax (unless you’re on benefits, of course, and that’s got to be paid for somehow). It's true that young parents (single or married) are raising the next generation of targets. Young kids become adult tax payers. They will be encouraged to smoke and drink. Or not discouraged.

Always ask yourself: who wins? You will find all the answers. Who would eat through a plate full of horse manure to find and eat a garden pea (a carrot would may be more appropriate)? A smoker. That’s what smokers do. Only a small amount of nicotine exists in tobacco to begin with and this small amount decreases and is just about completely destroyed by the heat of burning. Certainly this is complete at the point of burning. What do you imagine is left in that ash? But that is not quite all. There is still hope for the smoker. Still something left of what you paid for. Just behind the red-hot part at the tip. A trace survives and is released to be inhaled from that fire from Hell. Shows how potent this trace of class A drug actually is.

That’s the con! You buy something in an original form, set light to it, change it and essentially destroy it and remain happy! Like buying a car, crashing it and still be content with a wrecked vehicle. The really strange logic of the deluded.

Consider this: the smouldering (red heat) tobacco completely destroys the nicotine. The heat generated as the cigarette burns, but not enough to completely decompose the nicotine (the most addictive alkaloidal substance known to Man - more addictive than crack heroin and at least as dangerous) releases the nicotine trace in the stream of fumes containing a lot of carcinogenic compounds, mostly unidentified. Result: a little closer to death, but non-smokers do not get the nicotine. They get the poisonous cloud exclusively not being kept in the lungs of the addicted. Take out the garden pea and give away the horse manure! And for free! Very generous!

Has anybody ever wondered why non-smokers do not get addicted to smoking (through passive smoking)? Any comments should be written now on your (early) death certificate, please. Sort of cart-horse scenario.

Those pompous, arrogant Forest people breathtakingly (!) talk of choice. The minority push their rights to kill themselves openly and in a very public way. OK. I really couldn’t give a shit about that. But I do care about the people, and that includes the innocent children too young to make a choice and are forced to inhale their parents’ smoke, who must suffer the poisonous atmosphere.

The high blood pressure caused by hardened arteries. They should be elastic to operate properly. Not like a plank of wood. A wrecked heart. Destroyed. High levels of carbon monoxide gas - that’s lethal! The body is an aerobic system and very, very complex. It needs oxygen to work properly. So, very sensibly smokers take in all these poisons and now include carbon monoxide and exclude oxygen. Really smart people, these smokers. Such delusion.

This is a little like the alcoholic trying to find answers to problems at the bottom of a bottle. Wrong place and not very clever. Isn’t it amazing how so much money is made (by governments) through the legal sale of lethal substances? There are no upsides to cigarette smoking and arguably none from ingesting alcohol. There are those that say alcohol in small doses is good for you. Absolute crap. BIG time.

It’s really quite amazing how smokers delude themselves into believing they enjoy smoking. I would suggest the truth is more like they cannot break the addiction and so attempt to convince themselves that they actually enjoy a cigarette. It’s the addict’s fix. And hypocritically, they would (maybe) pour scorn on a drug taker. How would you describe smoking if it’s not drug taking? This is the denial.

Wake up. Before you die. It’s probably too late anyway, so don’t bother. Keep smoking. Keep spending. Nobody cares. What’s it like to be so cynically used?

I am quite fascinated by the possible answers to that one.