nisakiman

I notice that Aeroflot also gets a perfect 7.

55 minutes door to door is faster than I thought for the bus. How much quicker would a taxi be?

I'm a little bit worried about time because I arrive at BKK on a Sunday at 11:40 and depart DMK at 14:15. Do you think it's possible to make the DMK flight by taking the bus?

And just out of curiosity, what is the bus fare and expected taxi fare?

When I arrived in mid-Jan, I had a fairly tight connection timeline from arrival at BKK to departure from DMK. Then my flight got in half an hour late. Then it was really slow through immigration. I'd pretty well resigned myself to missing my flight and having to buy another ticket when I got to DM. I wandered outside to have a smoke and a limo driver came up to try to flog me an overpriced ride. I started to wave him away, but then thought about the relative costs of an overpriced limo versus losing the cost of my ticket and having to buy another one. The overpriced limo was the cheaper option, so I said to him:

"If you can get me to DM in time for my flight, you've got a deal". He asked what time my flight was, and when I told him, he said "No problem".

Well, it was both expensive and scary, but he had me at departures in DM in less than twenty minutes, and I made my flight with time to spare. I even had time for a cup of coffee before I went through to the departure lounge.

This was about 9.30 am. And the guy was quite obviously a maniac. And cheeky, because after I gave him an extra 100 for one of the most exhilarating rides of my life, he asked for another 100!

"Go forth and multiply" (or words to that effect), I told him. "That's yer lot".

So anyway, if you get a sufficiently lunatic driver, you can make it from one airport to the other quite fast.

it seems so easy to get a gun in this country ....

..and much easier to use it..

Shoot now and think of the consequences later.

Typical thai behaviour.

Yeah, sure. There are no crimes of passion, no "shoot now, think of the consequences later" in the west, eh?

If we have to start driving on the wrong side of the road with right hand drive vehicles then the road toll will climb even further. How do you phase out 30 million vehicles in 20 yrs.

If Sweden can change, so can Thailand.

You jest, of course.

The plastic bags I get from my local supermarket are biodegradable. Even when they're indoors, in the dark, in six months they start turning to dust. I'm sure if my local Greek supermarket can do it, then so can all other supermarkets. And they are quite natural, being a petrochemical product, which is, after all, just dead trees. So they are probably more 'green' (God, how I hate that word, and the sanctimonious ideology it represents) than paper bags, being made from long dead trees rather than live ones.

1999

WHO LAUNCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO HELP SMOKERS QUIT

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/p/m/w/pmw63a99/Spmw63a99.pdf

Is it a coincidence that only a few short years later, around 2003, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) appeared? It was signed, sealed and delivered as a fait accompli, before most people were even aware of its existence? Most relevant is Article 5.3 of the FCTC that effectively legitimizes the exclusion of any science that does not support the tobacco CONTROL consensus. Tobacco CONTROL science has been reduced to an advocacy tool, while genuine, unbiased, ethical medical science relating to smoking has been neutralized. It leaves scientists in no doubt as to what is expected from them and the inferred consequences of failure to do so.

Don't believe anything the anti-smoking zealots tell you Wym - they lie through their teeth. I understand you want to feel you are 'on message', but that message is wrong, and the people who are pushing that message will eventually be exposed for the frauds they are. Meanwhile, billions are being hosed at the pointless demonisation of smokers while research into the real causes and possible cures for lung cancer are grossly underfunded. It really is criminal.

I'm afraid you're the one brainwashed by commercially-interested propaganda efforts. Or IMO more likely actually paid to spread this nonsense. I'd much rather see sob-story crooks panhandling for their website "business ventures", at least they aren't killing millions with their lies.



A 10-second googling with your sources brought up this:

The "scientific" Hall of Shame - a list of scientists funded by the Tobacco industry to fake scientific results

The CRT is the Council of Tobacco Research -- essentially a scientific front group that was set up to attempt to invoke "science" to "prove" that cigarettes were not bad for your health.

This list just proves how easily scientists sell out to corporate interests when given grant money. Remember: What Big Tobacco pulled off with fake science in the 20th century, Big Biotech is pulling off yet again today.

Source http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-02496/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_99-cv-02496-4.pdf

Documents reflect that, at a minimum, the following individuals and organizations received funding through Special Account No. 4 beginning in the 1960s and ending in the 1990s:

Able-Lands, Inc.; Lauren Ackerman; ACVA Atlantic Inc.; George Albee; Aleph Foundation; Arthur D. Little, Inc.; Aspen Conference; Atmospheric Health Sciences; Domingo Aviado; James Ballenger; Alvan L. Barach; Walter Barker; Broda 0. Barnes; Battelle Columbus Laboratories; Battelle Memorial Institute; Walter Becker; Peter Berger; Rodger L. Bick; Billings & Gussman, Inc.; Richard Bing; BioResearch Laboratories; Theodore Blau; Irvin Blose; Walter Booker; Evelyn J. Bowers; Thomas H. Brem; Lyman A. Brewer, III; Brigham Young University; Oliver Brooke; Richard Brotman; Barbara B. Brown; K. Alexander Brownlee; Katherine Bryant; Victor B. Buhler; Thomas Burford; J. Harold Burn; Marie Burnett; Maurice Campbell; Carney Enterprises, Inc.; Duane Carr; Rune Cederlof; Domenic V. Cicchetti; Martin Cline; Code Consultants Inc.; Cohen, Coleghety Foundation, Inc.; Colucci, & Associates, Inc.; Computerland; W. Clark Cooper; A. Cosentino; Daniel Cox; Gertrude Cox; CTR; Geza De Takato; Bertram D. Dimmens; Charles Dunlap; Henry W. Elliott; Engineered Energy Mgt. Inc.; Environmental Policy Institute; J. Earle Estes; Frederick J. Evans; William Evans; Expenses related to Congressional Hearings in Washington D.C.; Hans J. Eysenck; Eysenck Institute of Psychiatry; Jack M. Farris; Sherwin J. Feinhandler; Alvan R. Feinstein; Herman Feldman; Edward Fickes; T. Finley; Melvin First; Edwin Fisher; R. Fisher; Merritt W. Foster; Richard Freedman; Herbert Freudenberger; Fudenberg; Arthur Furst; Nicholas Gerber; Menard M. Gertler; Jean Gibbons; Carl Glasser; Donald Goodwin; B. Greenberg; Alan Griffen; F. Gyntelberg; Harvard Medical School; Hearings-Kennedy-Hart Bill; William Heavlin; Norman Heimstra; Joseph Herkson; Richard J. Hickey; Carlos Hilado; Charles H. Hine; Hine, Inc.; Harold C. Hodge; Gary Huber; Wilhelm C. Hueper; Darrell Huff; Duncan Hutcheon; Industry Research Liaison Committee; Information Intersciences, Inc.; International Consultancy; International Technology Corporation; International Information Institute, Inc.; J.B. Spalding Statistical Service; J.F. Smith Research Account; Jacob, Medinger & Finnegan; Joseph Janis; Roger Jenkins; Marvin Kastenbaum; Leo Katz; Marti Kirschbaum; Kravetz Levine & Spotnitz; Lawrence L. Kuper; Mariano La Via; H. Langston; William G. Leaman; Michael Lebowitz; Samuel B. Lehrer; William Lerner; Edward Raynar Levine; G.J. Lieberman; S.C. Littlechild; Eleanor Macdonald; Thomas Mancuso; Nathan Mantel; R. McFarland; Meckler Engineering Group; Milton Meckler; Nancy Mello; Jack Mendelson; Michigan State University; Marc Micozzi; Irvin Miller; K. Moser; Albert Niden; Judith O'Fallon; John O'Lane; William Ober; J.H. Ogura; Ronald Okun; Ingram Olkin; Thomas Osdene (Philip Morris); Peat, Marwick Main & Co.; Thomas L. Petty; Pitney, Hardin & Kipp; Leslie Preger; Walter J. Priest; R. Proctor; Terrence P. Pshler; Public Smoking Research Group; R.W. Andersohn & Assoc.; L.G.S. Rao; Herbert L. Ratcliffe; Attilio Renzetti; Response Analysis Project; Response Analysis Consultation; R.H. Rigdon; Jay Roberts; Milton B. Rosenblatt; John Rosencrans; Walter Rosenkrantz; Ray H. Rosenman; Linda Russek; Henry Russek; Ragnar Rylander; George L. Saiger; D.E. Sailagyi; I. Richard Savage; Richard S. Schilling; Schirmer Engineering Corp.; S. Schor; G.N. Schrauzer; Charles Schultz; John Schwab; Carl L. Seltzer; Murray Senkus (Reynolds); Paul Shalmy; R. Shilling; Shook, Hardy & Bacon; Henry Shotwell; Allen Silberberg; N. Skolnik; JF Smith; Louis A. Soloff; Sheldon C. Sommers (CTR); JB Spalding; Charles Spielberg; Charles Spielberger; Lawrence Spielvogel; St. George Hospital & Medical School; Stanford Research Institution Project; Russell Stedman; Arthur Stein; Elia Sterling; Theodor Sterling; Thomas Szasz; The Foundation for Research in Bronchial Asthma and Related Diseases; The Futures Group; Paul Toannidis; Trenton, New Jersey Hearings; Chris P. Tsokos; University of South Florida; Helmut Valentin; Richard Wagner; Norman Wall; Wayne State University; Weinberg Consulting Group; Roger Wilson; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; Jack Wiseman; George Wright; John P. Wyatt; J. Yerushalmy; and Irving Zeidman.

Ctrl-F and you'll find your "incredible" sources.

Have you ever enquired into the funding sources of the anti-tobacco lobby groups? No, thought not.

... At the meetings held at the MHRA’s London headquarters in May 2011 and January this year, the chairman asked the expert panel to declare any interests. Minutes of the meeting in 2011 obtained by The Times under the Freedom of Information Act show that “no interests were declared by members”. However, some members of the panel worked as consultants for big pharmaceuticals companies and advised on nicotine.

... Paul Aveyard, Professor of Behavioural Medicine at the University of Oxford, is a consultant to McNeil and Pfizer on nicotine replacement therapy and nicotine vaccines, respectively. Professor Aveyard, who helped to produce guidance for doctors on prescribing licensed nicotine products, is also a for-mer consultant to Xenova, which developed vaccines for nicotine addiction.

Martin Jarvis, a Professor Emeritus of Health Psychology, University College London, and vice-chairman of the board of trustees of the anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health, is a paid consultant to Pfizer. He has advised on an ingredient of Pfizer’s drug Chantix, treating nicotine addiction.

Christopher Marriott, formerly Emeritus Professor of Pharmaceutics, King’s College London, holds shares in three pharmaceuticals companies. One is Vectura Limited, part of Vectura plc, a FTSE 250-listed company whose inhalation products help to combat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, better known as smoker’s lungs.

The WHO it seems, are quite happy to openly admit their unhealthy association with the pharmaceutical industry too. This is the industry that is arguably the current main beneficiary of the anti-smoker agenda and therefore this represents an obvious and serious conflict of interest to the WHO. It is anyone’s guess how much money has exchanged hands between these two and the rest of the tobacco CONTROL industry for their mutual benefit or how much it has improved profits for the pharmaceuticals, but the sums appear to be vast. This is win win win situation for everyone involved, including tax hungry governments. The only losers are individuals, scientific integrity and civil society in general.

However, upon some preliminary investigation it is clear that these NGO's are backed by $446,000,000.00 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) which has direct ties to the Johnson & Johnson Company, and J & J is the manufacturer of Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ via its wholly owned subsidiary ALZA. Recently, the buyout of Pfizer Consumer Health(see page 4 or 61) means J & J profits even more from the passage of smoking bans thru additional sales of Nicotrol, Nicorette, Commit, (see pgs 32,33,56) and any other over the counter smoking cessation drugs once manufactured by Pfizer Consumer Health division.

25th January 2008
By PBR Staff Writer

Although many smokers are keen to kick their habit, will power by itself is often not sufficient and smoking cessation aids are often needed. The prescription nicotine dependence market is set to grow strongly at a compound annual growth rate of 16% to reach $4.6 billion by 2016, driven by two promising pipeline nicotine vaccines and Pfizer's popular nicotine receptor agonist Chantix.

The author does not mention that worldwide smoking bans are the real impetus for such an ambitious prediction, nor the fact that Johnson & Johnson Company merged with the Chantix drug maker Pfizer.

Also left out of the article is the fact that Johnson & Johnson Company's private political wing, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), provided hundreds of millions of dollars to make this high-reaching marketing plan a very real possibility.

Even as these rent seeking smoking ban laws (funded by pharmaceutical interests) are being implemented by local governments to "protect the health of workers"; new air quality testing proves that secondhand smoke is actually 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations

...Sigh...

I'm sorry, I assumed you'd know how to pick links out of a blog overview. I was obviously mistaken, so I've done it for you for one of them. It's not very difficult once you get the hang of it.

http://dengulenegl.dk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/meta-analysis-acute-effects-of-nicotine-and-smoking-on-human-performance.pdf

That's one of the early links. If you read the original (blog) link I gave you, you will notice throughout the text little numbers in brackets in a different colour to the script. If you click on those little numbers, just like magic, another page, usually the original research papers, will appear! Amazing, eh? I'm sure even you will be able to manage that if you try really hard.

again ,you will not convince me that smoking is " healthy " or " performance enhancing "

GTFO....

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that smoking is 'healthy'. Of course it's not. Nor is drinking beer. Nor is eating Big Macs. But smoking has been amply shown to significantly enhance cognitive ability, which is what I meant by enhancing (mental) performance.

Besides the fact it's smelly dirty and disgusting to be anywhere near a smoker.

Work in a health care institutional setting with the elderly for a while and talk to health professionals about what they see every day directly resulting from the nasty habit.

I completely understand current addicts being defensive - it's harder to kick nicotine than crack and heroin - but I think it's worth spending whatever it takes to try to discourage the next generations from taking it up.

Most especially in a developing nation where most will end up having to choose between their ciggies and better food for their family.

You've obviously been paying close attention to the propaganda. Before the zealots started with their campaigns, nobody even noticed smoke or smokers. Well done - consider yourself successfully indoctrinated. The zealots would be proud of you.

Sorry you're completely delusional.

If I step foot in a room that's been occupied any length of time by a smoker I completely gag, my eyes tear up and I have to leave or I'm gonna spew.

If I'm actually in the room where they're currently smoking I get instantly dizzy and very nauseous.

I've seen lung tissue removed from a dead smoker, and put side by side with a normal person's lungs - even a five-year-old can see why smoking kills.

Maybe you're being paid by some PR firm for the tobacco interests I don't know, can't believe anyone would actually believe that cr^p you're spouting.

I don't disbelieve you if you say you have an extreme reaction to tobacco smoke - some people do. What I'm saying is that until the zealots started planting in peoples minds that tobacco smoke stinks, the vast majority of people didn't think so. Like where I live, in winter the air is heavy with wood smoke, as that is the preferred fuel in the sticks. It's everywhere, but it's an ambient smell - nobody notices it. There could well be a few who say "God, I hate the stench of wood smoke!", but they are few and far between. However, if some environmental group spent a few years and a lot of money telling people that wood smoke 'stinks', sure as eggs is eggs, you'd start seeing comments under articles about it saying things like "Those filthy, stinking wood burners should be compelled to give up their wood burning habit, because I don't like the smell. It gets in my hair, and if I go to a bar with a wood stove my eyes sting and I completely gag and I feel like I'm gonna spew and I have to put all my clothes in the wash....."

People are very easy to indoctrinate. Everybody (or most people, anyway) want to be part of the majority, the groupthink, so they change their beliefs to suit the prevailing orthodoxy. It's a well tried and tested technique, and has been used by governments for years.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels - Hitler's Propaganda Minister

"I've seen lung tissue removed from a dead smoker, and put side by side with a normal person's lungs - even a five-year-old can see why smoking kills."

WHO: Millions Dying of Urban Air Pollution

“GENEVA, Switzerland, September 30, 2011 (ENS) – “Across the world, city air is often thick with exhaust fumes, factory smoke or soot from coal burning power plants,” says Dr. Maria Neira of the World Health Organization. “In many countries there are no air quality regulations and, where they do exist, national standards and their enforcement vary markedly.”

“PM10 particles, measuring 10 micrometers or less, are an important indicator of urban air pollution and the health risks associated with the complex mixtures of pollutants typically found in cities.”

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2011/2011-09-30-01.html

Michael Abramson: “The lungs of city dwellers are much dirtier than the lungs of rural dwellers. So that if a post mortem examination is performed, you actually see the black deposits on the outside of the lungs of city dwellers and also in the lymph glands in the middle of the chest.

And this is true, even in people who haven’t worked in a coal mine or haven’t smoked. It’s simply the effect of breathing in fine particles over the years of a lifetime.”

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s838424.htm

“Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from examining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.”

Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not intorduce carbon particles into the lung.”

The whole question was summed up well by Dr. Irving Zeidman, Professor of Pathology at the University of Pennsylvania, when he was asked in Congress whether it was possible to tell which of two lungs was the lung of a smoker. He said: “I would estimate that of a thousand pathologists in this country 998 would say, ‘I could not tell,’ and the other two would say, ‘I could tell,’ and those two who could tell either had some divine intuition or were not telling the truth.”

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/pdf/075/00007569.pdf

Don't believe anything the anti-smoking zealots tell you Wym - they lie through their teeth. I understand you want to feel you are 'on message', but that message is wrong, and the people who are pushing that message will eventually be exposed for the frauds they are. Meanwhile, billions are being hosed at the pointless demonisation of smokers while research into the real causes and possible cures for lung cancer are grossly underfunded. It really is criminal.

People smoke because they enjoy smoking. It has many benefits. It is both a stimulant and a relaxant, and yet does not diminish any faculties. It gives greater endurance and better concentration. It aids the thinking process. And it is enjoyable.

http://opishposh.com/the-surprising-benefits-of-smoking-cigarettes/

endurance for what exactly ? like how does clogging your airways and bloodstream with tar

improve your performance ?

id like to know because im a lifelong heavy smoker whos quit and now i can breath better

when im drnking whisky with a pile smokers il still smoke but i regret it the next day .....100000000%

http://dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html

From someones blog ............

GTFO .......

...Sigh...

I'm sorry, I assumed you'd know how to pick links out of a blog overview. I was obviously mistaken, so I've done it for you for one of them. It's not very difficult once you get the hang of it.

http://dengulenegl.dk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/meta-analysis-acute-effects-of-nicotine-and-smoking-on-human-performance.pdf

That's one of the early links. If you read the original (blog) link I gave you, you will notice throughout the text little numbers in brackets in a different colour to the script. If you click on those little numbers, just like magic, another page, usually the original research papers, will appear! Amazing, eh? I'm sure even you will be able to manage that if you try really hard.

People smoke because they enjoy smoking. It has many benefits. It is both a stimulant and a relaxant, and yet does not diminish any faculties. It gives greater endurance and better concentration. It aids the thinking process. And it is enjoyable.

http://opishposh.com/the-surprising-benefits-of-smoking-cigarettes/

endurance for what exactly ? like how does clogging your airways and bloodstream with tar

improve your performance ?

id like to know because im a lifelong heavy smoker whos quit and now i can breath better

when im drnking whisky with a pile smokers il still smoke but i regret it the next day .....100000000%

http://dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html

Besides the fact it's smelly dirty and disgusting to be anywhere near a smoker.

Work in a health care institutional setting with the elderly for a while and talk to health professionals about what they see every day directly resulting from the nasty habit.

I completely understand current addicts being defensive - it's harder to kick nicotine than crack and heroin - but I think it's worth spending whatever it takes to try to discourage the next generations from taking it up.

Most especially in a developing nation where most will end up having to choose between their ciggies and better food for their family.

"Besides the fact it's smelly dirty and disgusting to be anywhere near a smoker."

You've obviously been paying close attention to the propaganda. Before the zealots started with their campaigns, nobody even noticed smoke or smokers. Well done - consider yourself successfully indoctrinated. The zealots would be proud of you.

"Work in a health care institutional setting with the elderly for a while and talk to health professionals about what they see every day directly resulting from the nasty habit."

Evidence please?

I think you'll find that the majority of elderly in health care are there for reasons completely unrelated to smoking. This is just more baseless propaganda that you've swallowed hook, line and sinker.

"I completely understand current addicts being defensive - it's harder to kick nicotine than crack and heroin - but I think it's worth spending whatever it takes to try to discourage the next generations from taking it up."

Smoking was redefined as an 'addiction quite recently by the anti-smoking fanatics because they knew that the connotations would engender repulsion in many. Again, all part of the propaganda drive.

In fact smoking is no more addictive than coffee. If it were more addictive than crack or heroin, how on earth would smokers manage long-haul flights? How would so many smokers give up? Utter tosh. Smoking is a habit, no more, no less. It's like saying someone is addicted to chocolate.

Usually, when a chemist isolates an active molecule from an addictive plant, drug addicts get hold of it quickly (morphine from opium, cocaine from coca leaves, tetrahydrocannabinol from cannabis, etc).
- We have known nicotine for a century and a half. It has been extracted, synthesized, used as an insecticide, yet we have no observation of its use for addictive purposes.
- During wars, when tobacco was rare and its availability limited, we had no reports of addition of nicotine to various dried leaves, wormwood, walnut and so on used as tobacco substitutes.
- Under the same conditions, no smuggling or any kind of traffic of nicotine has ever been reported.
- The pure nicotine can be obtained from chemical companies (Fluka) at a price of €440 per liter, which for 1 euro would make up 143 packs of 20 cigarettes. No "drug" is available at such a low price.

http://www.formindep.org/The-myth-of-nicotine-addiction.html

"Most especially in a developing nation where most will end up having to choose between their ciggies and better food for their family."

It is highly unlikely that anyone in Thailand "will end up having to choose between their ciggies and better food for their family", and if they do, the reason is the criminally punitive taxes levied on tobacco products which fall disproportionately on the poor.

You obviously don't get it at all, Wym.

People smoke because they enjoy smoking. It has many benefits. It is both a stimulant and a relaxant, and yet does not diminish any faculties. It gives greater endurance and better concentration. It aids the thinking process. And it is enjoyable.

http://opishposh.com/the-surprising-benefits-of-smoking-cigarettes/

Not so fast:

The findings of the study will likely be questioned by Cancer Research UK however, who state on their website that "second-hand smoke can increase a non-smoker's risk of getting lung cancer by a quarter, and may also increase the risk of cancers of the larynx (voice box) and pharynx (upper throat)."

Of course they do, they belong to the anti-smoking lobby and are dependent on government grants.

Anyway each person decides for himself what he wants to believe, and that decision is most likely influenced by his own preferences.

Yermanee

Indeed. CRUK are a rabidly anti-smoking outfit, and they also fund ASH, the fake charity whose main role is to lobby government for yet more and more smoking restrictions. I think that people who donate money to CRUK would be a lot less inclined to do so if they realised that their money was not being used for cancer research, but was being given to a prohibitionist organisation who pay their director, Deborah Arnott, more than £80,000 per annum plus expenses. ASH get virtually nothing in the way of public donations - all their money comes from government grants and CRUK.

Perhaps they are reading the subtitles on the telly and at the cinema?

I can understand the UK being well down the list. They're all glued to the idiot box in the corner of the room soaking up the propaganda.

I would have expected the Japanese to be well up the listings - very competitive education system there. Likewise modern-day China. And Korea, come to that.

I honestly don't understand Egypt and Czech Republic. I would have thought the Egyptians were too busy shooting each other, and the Czechs too busy drinking excellent beer.

What do you presume? Tell me?

50% of people die from cigarette

Even playing Russian roulette is safer. 1 to 6.

Do you mean that "Smoking kills 50% of smokers"? That's the Tobacco Control soundbite, I believe.

I'll let you into a little secret sunshine. 100% of smokers die.

Another little secret. 100% of non-smokers die, too.

That's pretty frightening stuff, what?

I'll let you into another little secret (I'm feeling generous today). The anti-smoking fanatics lie through their teeth.

I know that because I've spent the last few years checking their statements to see what the original research is, what the results were, who funded it and how it was conducted. The normal modus operandum for the Tobacco Control organisations (who are swimming in cash from the pharmaceutical companies, who have a vested interest in smoking bans) is to ask for researchers to pitch for a research project, say for instance 'third-hand smoke', offering a substantial grant for the research. The putative researchers know, of course, what results will be expected of them and pitch for the business on that basis. The Tobacco Control organisation then chooses the researcher who they think will give them the answer they want. Neither science nor reality comes into the equation. It's the propaganda value they want. They don't care if it's an outright lie. their motto is 'the end justifies the means'.

For example:

Back in 2010, California's Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP) - an organisation which despises tobacco, as the name suggests - decided that a new lie was required, so dangled 3.75 million carrots in front of junk scientists everywhere.

Of course, junk scientists will say anything you like for $3.75 million (eh, Anna?), and it was clear what results the TRDRP were looking for, so prospective grantees had to be equally clear about what the TRDRP would get for its money.

One such lucky winner - as I reported at the time - was University of California Riverside.

So, Manuela already knew what her report was going to say before she embarked upon it. It's kind of a prerequisite in tobacco control; if your study is impartial it might come up with the wrong results, you see, and would have to be buried. And what a waste of TRDRP's money that would be!

Read the whole article here:

http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.gr/2014/02/audit-trail-of-public-health-lie.html

This is just one small example. There are many many more.

I've never been to Pattaya, and the last time I was in Phuket was 13 years ago. I base my observations on what I see when I'm out and about with my wife in Bangkok and Ubon. Bangkok observations, note, were not made in Patong or Nana, but around the shopping centres like MBK and Siam.

Many Thai females also smoke in Thailand i have noticed, and long may it continue . Must be something about the place and I guess prices and no excessive peer pressure to stop.

Yes, that's another interesting thing. According to official figures the smoking prevalence of Thai females is around 3%, but from personal observation I would put it a lot higher than that; perhaps 8 - 10%. Again, these figures rely on the women admitting to being smokers, and cultural pressures dictate that many of them will deny it when asked by a stranger.

The official figures concerning smoking prevalence in the UK are disputable. The figures are gathered by asking people if they smoke. Given the level of propaganda and officially sanctioned discrimination aimed at smokers, many smokers when asked if they smoke will deny it, not wishing to be identified with this newly created underclass. Also there are many 'social' smokers, who will smoke when out with friends, or just in the evenings who don't actually think of themselves as smokers. My eldest daughter is one of these. In UK, she never smokes in her house, and not that much out of it. Likewise her husband. But when they are here on holiday, they both smoke like chimneys. I'm sure if a survey asked if she was a smoker, her reply would be "No".

Where I live, during the summer months I see large numbers of British tourists. Here, smoking is seen as a normal pastime, and because the anti-smoking fanatics have not gained a foothold here the lies and exaggerations that Brits are subjected to on a daily basis don't exist. As a result, tourists can sit down and relax with a beer and a ciggy without feeling guilty about it. Nobody will so much as frown at them.

From my observations, I would estimate that about 60% of the Brit tourists I see are smokers. They are from all walks of life, from blue-collar to wealthy professional. The ant-smoking propaganda over the last few decades in UK has been so remorseless that most Brits actually believe most of it, even though many, perhaps most, of the claims fly in the face of rational thought and common sense. So it isn't surprising that many smokers are reluctant to admit to their enjoyment of tobacco.

Heh! That has to be a wind-up!

Amazingly, Thailand ranks behind Gaza Strip (111th), China (100th) and Syria (97th).

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Which really surprises me. Sure, I didn't expect Thailand to be in the top ten, but behind Gaza Strip?

Must be something to do with the driving...

Mind you, Cambodia comes in at 179th and Lao at 182nd, so I suppose LOS is doing ok locally. Malaysia does a little better at 112th.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

US State Department knows where I am because I tell 'em:

https://step.state.gov/step/

Many would not use that service.

They hate government and live in a world of paranoia !

Or perhaps they value their privacy.

That's not paranoia. It's a desire for freedom from unwanted intrusion into ones private life by busybody state agencies.

Sure... but people like their"nosy" State Dept when there's unrest, rioting and flooding and they want a ticket back to the US, don't they?!

Do they? Not anyone I've met - you must move in different circles to me.

I wonder how many US citizens living in Thailand asked their embassy for a ticket back home because of the flooding in BKK last year, or the unrest we see at the moment, or during the Redshirt riots previously? I'll wager that out of the thousands of US expats in LOS, not one requested a ticket back home. And I'm equally sure that no tickets would have been forthcoming even if they had asked.

Personally, I don't expect my government to act as my nanny. I deal with things like unrest, rioting and flooding myself, in the way that I deem best. It would never occur to me to involve my government. The less they know about my movements, the better I like it. And no, I have no shady past that I'm anxious to hide from anyone. I just value my privacy.

here is the black post.....polished up it does have a red tinge when viewed in sunlight from a certain angle....but this might also be the red sanding dust settling into the grain and cracks....shall give it a wash and see what comes up also in next few days.

IMG_3171.JPG

IMG_3172.JPG

It's a bit difficult to see, as these photos aren't as clear as the ones you posted a bit earlier, but from what I can make out the grain configuration looks very similar in both. I'm still inclined to think that they are both the same wood, just that the darker one has been subjected to different growing/drying/storage conditions. Some clearer shots of the dark wood would help.

Showbags the Showman.

Building the suspense

here is the black post.....polished up it does have a red tinge when viewed in sunlight from a certain angle....but this might also be the red sanding dust settling into the grain and cracks....shall give it a wash and see what comes up also in next few days.

IMG_3171.JPG

IMG_3172.JPG

It's a bit difficult to see, as these photos aren't as clear as the ones you posted a bit earlier, but from what I can make out the grain configuration looks very similar in both. I'm still inclined to think that they are both the same wood, just that the darker one has been subjected to different growing/drying/storage conditions. Some clearer shots of the dark wood would help.

Since the discovery of fire back in the mists of time, man has been crouching over open fires for cooking and warmth. Over the thousands of generations exposed to volumes of acrid smoke we have evolved to be able to deal with it. Our lungs are remarkably efficient. The vendor, exposed to the smoke all day, every day may just possibly suffer some ill effects after a few decades, but for his customers the risk is so minimal that it just isn't worth consideration.

Another scare story doubtless released as part of a drive for more funding for that department. We see it all the time these days. Tobacco, alcohol, salt, sugar, trans-fats, the list goes on. It makes you wonder how we ever survived as a species the way the fearmongers carry on.

But for the real story behind all these calls for restrictions on our daily lives, as always, follow the money. You only have to look at the Tobacco Control Industry to see how it works. Countless billions are spent on tobacco control. Where does all that money go? It goes into the pockets of the people who make a living talking up the dangers of smoking. It pays their mortgages and their five-figure salaries. They have a vested interest in exaggerating the risks because otherwise they would be out of a job. That's why when interest seems to be flagging, they come up with another imaginary 'danger'. Now they're even trying to convince us that there is such a thing as 'third-hand smoke'! (Scraping the bottom of the barrel now.)

Take for instance Deborah Arnott who heads the fake charity 'ASH UK'. She's on more than £80,000 pa plus generous perks. All she does is flit around the world to various anti-smoking junkets (all expenses paid, natch) and lobby government for more bans and restrictions. But you'll never hear her call for an outright ban on tobacco, because that would mean her organisation would become redundant.

The same applies to alcohol and all the other things that we've been consuming for generations without a problem, but all of a sudden we are told that they will kill us. University departments are created to 'research' the 'problem', which of course need government funding. And the trick to turn on the government money tap is to get a good scary headline in the media.

"Something must be done!" they cry.

And of course, government, who want to be seen to be 'doing something' about this non-existent problem start hosing taxpayer's money at it, much to the delight of the 'researchers' and their hangers-on.