nisakiman

I'd stick with colgate - gives you that ring of confidence doesn't it?

Depends whether or not you swallow it...

There are probably GW deniers who take glee in revving up their large fossil fuel engines just for the rush of knowing they're being naughty.

You may be right, though most skeptics I know have moved beyond the Play-Doh stage of seeing the world as either "naughty" or "nice".

There's a serious point to my post -- Weepy Bill is not just a nobody in the climate debate; he is the founder of a multi-million dollar organisation called 350.org, whose stated aim is to initiate global action to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to 350ppm.

The only people he is going to impress by bursting into tears at the sight of a chunk of coral are those who already share his apocalyptic viewpoint; everyone else is going to be faintly embarrassed at the sight of an adult behaving this way.

That extends to the wider problem of communication, as a recent paper in the European Journal of Social Psychology notes:

"Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often avoid supporting such change. We .. [found] that individuals resist social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and militant."

Exactly. Weepy Bill is his own worst enemy; he may have relevant points to make about climate, but nobody apart from his cronies listens because of his name-calling, arrogance, and absurd grandstanding gestures.

He's not alone; the entire militant Green movement relies on many of the same methods, which is a good part of why they get nowhere, to their enduring frustration and rage.

"He's not alone; the entire militant Green movement relies on many of the same methods, which is a good part of why they get nowhere, to their enduring frustration and rage."

What you should have said is "...why they get nowhere anymore...". It used to work, and it still does with some, but increasing numbers of people have woken up to the emotional blackmail to which the fanatics pushing their own agenda resort. It's becoming the new 'Godwin's Law' that as soon as you hear 'But think of the cheeeldren..." you know that there is no scientific justification for whatever follows or precedes it, and that you are being scammed.

Below. Very typical of the Australian 'Dunny in my day. Affectionately called 'The Thunderbox'. Not pleasant in the stifling heat of an Australian summer. A Bum Gun would have been handy as a weapon against poisonous spiders, snakes and blow-flies.

Not uncommon for many working class families to drill a hole through the top corner of last years phonebook and hang it in on a nail inside the dunny. That was your 4X4.

We still had a dunny like this in my family home in Victoria, Australia when I did my first trip to the Far East. The first Bidet I saw was in the French Pavilion at Expo '70 in Osaka Japan. it was a great novelty to us. The boys stood patiently in line to give it a workout.

We have come a long way since then - thank god.

When I lived in Aus in the 70s, a mate of mine who lived in the Otways has a dunny very similar to the one pictured. In the summer it was a flyblown, stinking sauna, and in the winter it was like a bloody freezer. I also seem to remember that parts of old Williamstown and Alton (I lived in Williamstown for a couple of years, but thankfully with mains sewerage) still had the weekly shit truck come round to empty the buckets.

Those aspects of the past I don't feel any nostalgia for, I have to admit!

This forum is not so different to others on the net. In fact I'd say it's considerably less acerbic than some other forums (fora?) I comment on. The majority of posters here are basically friendly and helpful, albeit with a dark sense of humour sometimes. As long as he's not one of the easily offended, he'll be fine.

Of course electronic cigarettes are just as bad as the real thing......

Raise the price to USD 25.00 like in Oz and a lot less people will smoke.

Yep, my mum gave up recently...just couldn't afford it as a pensioner in OZ. Tax the guts out of them....it's really the only way to reduce smoking.....when the only choice is putting food on the table for their kids or smoking, people will need to choose.

And why the hell should anybody be forced to choose? Unless you are from an Amazonian tribe that has no contact with the outside world, you can't help but be aware of the alleged dangers of smoking. Just as mountaineers are aware of the dangers of climbing, and footballers (particularly professionals) are aware of the risks of serious injury. It's your life, and how you choose to live it is nobody's business but your own. Who the hell do you think you are to seek to impose your own personal morality on everyone else through the blunt instrument of legislation and taxation? If I enjoy smoking, that's my choice. It's none of your dam_n business.

Everyone is completely aware of the dangers.

It's a legal addiction. Plain and simple. It's not particularly pleasurable and deep down 95% would like to quit. It is extremely addictive so a bit of sympathy to help people who want to quit goes a long way.

And I went cold 3 weeks ago, after working for the industry for a long time. It really makes no sense at all but, people will say they enjoy it, but it is a stretch to say enjoy....

I have to disagree with you there, TaH. I smoke because I really do enjoy it. And so do most smokers who have ignored the siren calls of the righteous moralisers who want all smokers to feel guilty about it.

It's not a slavish addiction. People give up smoking all the time with very little effort. I have had a couple of periods in my life when I've gone for a year or more without smoking, simply because I became bored with it at that time. No drama, I just stopped.

But those who give up smoking fall into two groups. There are those who give up for reasons of their own, and because they really don't want to smoke anymore. Those people generally have no problem with giving up, and they also have no problem with people who continue to smoke.

The other group are those who have succumbed to the pressures of the Tobacco Control Industry; who have been hectored and harassed and pressured into thinking that they have no choice but to give up, that as smokers they are somehow sub-human. They believe the propaganda. They want to be part of the mainstream orthodoxy again, to be accepted back into the majority. This group finds it a real struggle to quit, and if and when they finally do stop, they are the group that become the most intolerant haters of all things smoking related. It is this group that post comments about smokers 'stinking', and how they should be forced by law and taxation into quitting. And even that they should be shot (yes, I've seen many comments along those lines, even here on TV). The psychopathic hatred of smokers comes from the fact that they didn't really want to quit - they were forced to by the pressures of the hate propaganda they'd been brainwashed with, so they in turn project that hatred onto others who continue to smoke, those who haven't succumbed to that same propaganda.

And that is the reason for my antagonism towards the Tobacco Control Industry. They manipulate people through lies and deception. They shamelessly use "the cheeldren" to try to instill guilt. They are totally amoral.

I'm not actually a militant pro-smoker, but I am a militant supporter of freedom of choice. And our freedoms are being eroded by these self-appointed guardians of our morals, using a salami-slice approach. Whenever they gain ground, they want more. They will never be satiated, And I detest being lied to, particularly by people who should know better and are in a position of responsibility.

Of course electronic cigarettes are just as bad as the real thing......

Raise the price to USD 25.00 like in Oz and a lot less people will smoke.

Yep, my mum gave up recently...just couldn't afford it as a pensioner in OZ. Tax the guts out of them....it's really the only way to reduce smoking.....when the only choice is putting food on the table for their kids or smoking, people will need to choose.

And why the hell should anybody be forced to choose? Unless you are from an Amazonian tribe that has no contact with the outside world, you can't help but be aware of the alleged dangers of smoking. Just as mountaineers are aware of the dangers of climbing, and footballers (particularly professionals) are aware of the risks of serious injury. It's your life, and how you choose to live it is nobody's business but your own. Who the hell do you think you are to seek to impose your own personal morality on everyone else through the blunt instrument of legislation and taxation? If I enjoy smoking, that's my choice. It's none of your damn business.

This was posted today on a blog I read.

That Irish plain packs study

Last week I wrote about the latest plain packs study which is the same as all the other plain pack studies, ie. it's a survey that asks teenagers whether they think ugly packs look ugly.

I'm very grateful to a reader who has managed to prise this unpublished effort from the hands of the state-funded charities that commissioned it. I won't say it makes for fascinating reading, but there are some telling moments which undermine the already-weak claims made on its behalf.

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2013/10/that-irish-plain-packs-study.html

So many of the posts here refer to smokers "subjecting me to your toxic fumes..." etc etc.

Sorry guys, but you've been duped, gulled and indoctrinated with a large pile of steaming bullshit.

There is no toxicity to SHS in the quantities you are ever likely to encounter, even in a really smokey bar (first rule of toxicology - 'the dose makes the poison'). The only reason you believe it is harmful is because a hardcore group of fanatical zealots who are awash with countless millions of funding have been on a propaganda spree for the last three decades. They have been relentlessly broadcasting lies, misinformation and exaggeration through every media channel available. They cherry-pick the stats they want (and usually twist those), and ignore the facts which don't fit their agenda. They care not one iota for the damage they cause, nor for truth: "The end justifies the means" is their ethos; "Think of the children" is their guilt-tripping rallying cry.

However, if you look at the actual results of all the research that has been done on ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke), you will see that the RR value (Relative Risk) is insignificant.

http://www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#ETSTable

"It should be noted that of these 25 studies NONE reach the RR 3.0 level where inferences could possibly be drawn regarding increased risk. Only ONE shows a statistically significant risk (RR 2.29) while ONE shows a statistically significant REDUCED risk (RR 0.78) (Suggesting a beneficial effect.) The remainder are NOT statistically significant, suggesting neither risk nor benefit. NINE of these lean toward weak increased risk and THIRTEEN suggest a weak beneficial effect. The overall picture suggests, if anything, that ETS is beneficial to childrens health, but as with all epidemiological study It is suggested by many that only statistical correlation's can be shown and ‘correlation’ does NOT equal ‘causation’.

The overall ‘scientific consensus’ on ETS ‘harm’ suggested by the anti-smoker industry, depending upon which studies are included/ excluded from analysis, concludes that ETS raises risk of ill health. There are various ‘consensus’ figures suggested, eg RR’s of 1.16, 1.21, 1.33, equating to between 16% and 33% increased risk (there may be others). To the layman, this may look like damning evidence, but it indicates ‘increased risk’ NOT ‘actual risk’ and many do not understand the difference. A simple analogy explains the principle; If you buy one lottery ticket, your chance (risk) of winning the jackpot is ‘X’, if you then buy another you increase your chances (raised risk) of winning by 100%. The chance (‘actual risk’) of winning is somewhat different. Even If we accept these anti-smoker figures as definitive, the actual risk is minute.

For perspective It is worthwhile to make comparisons with other ‘health risks’ ;
Butter: RR 1.44 (CI 1.16, 1.80) - 44% increased risk
Eggs: RR 1.53 (CI 1.02, 2.31) - 53% increased risk
Liver: RR 1.68 (CI 1.29, 2.19) - 68% increased risk
Whole Milk: significant increase in risk up to RR 2.64 - 164% increased risk"

http://kin-free.blogspot.co.uk/

Non-smokers may not much like the smell of tobacco (although that too is a recent phenomenon born of the "smokers stink" propaganda - thirty years ago, nobody minded, or indeed noticed smoke), but it certainly isn't 'poisoning' you.

There will come a point in the future when the whole SHS scam will fall apart, just as the AGW scam is falling apart now. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

The smoking bans have been socially divisive and economically disastrous, particularly in the colder countries. Businesses have been destroyed; in the UK alone over 13,000 pubs have closed since the ban (the rate of closures quadrupled immediately in the wake of the ban) and something in the region of 150,000 - 200,000 jobs have been lost; homes have been repossessed; families and friends have been set against each other and 25% of the population have been set up as legitimate targets for bigotry and discrimination. All so some misguided zealots can pursue their warped ideology of an unattainable 'smoke-free society'.

The sooner common sense prevails on this subject, the better the world will be.

This is a great idea,cut taxes ,while the debit keeps mounting !,

I don't think tourists would come to Thailand just to shop for

luxury goods, it would always be in the back of your mind,is this

product genuine,with all the counterfeit products about here.

regards Worgeordie

@worgeordie: In general I agree with what you say, but your understanding of tax policies and how it rates to revenues for the state is lacking.

Economists gauge the price's effect on demand as "elasticity". Luxury goods, by definition, are high elasticity products, which means their demand decreases sharply with increasing prices.

Basic economic theory proves that luxury taxes produce a net negative benefit because of losses due to reduced economic activity. It is the exact equal and opposite of minimum wage policies. Both are politically attractive but both result in net losses to society.

Absolutely right. It's known as 'The Laffer Curve'. whereby there is an optimum point in the amount of duty (or income tax, whatever) charged which will maximise the tax take for the government. Once they levy duty / raise income tax beyond this point, then the tax take will start to fall.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/04/15/the-laffer-curve-shows-that-tax-increases-are-a-very-bad-idea-even-if-they-generate-more-tax-revenue/

Thanks for the info, it's much appreciated.

As an afterthought, do you know anything about car hire there? Prices and pitfalls to avoid? It would be nice to have the independence of a car, but I'm not on an unlimited budget! Haven't hired a car in so long (unnecessary in BKK, and borrow the father-in-law's in Ubon) that I have no idea about prices. Someone told me once that it's cheaper in Lao than in Thailand, but I have no idea how true that is.

Mid-range on the hotel budget. I actually don't really like top-end hotels (not that I imagine there's any five star hotels in Pakse ), I've never been comfortable being fawned over by flunkies looking for a big tip. What I look for in a hotel is cleanliness and friendliness and character. Budget-wise, for Lao I guess €10 - 20 would probably get a reasonable place, but I'd happily pay €30 for somewhere really nice. I also like to have a balcony, where possible.

When I crossed over from Nong Khai a few years back, the visa took about 30 minutes, but there were a few farang in the queue. In that instance, we had made our own way to the border, walked across, and got a minivan to Viengchang, so there were no time constraints, but on this route we would be on the same bus all the way, hence my slight concern about the time factor.

If you take the bus do not dawdle around at the border. The driver may leave without you.

Does "do not dawdle at the border", mean you have time to get a visa? (Assuming there is a visa service at that border).

I will be in Ubon for a few weeks staying with the in-laws, and originally thought of crossing at the Friendship bridge at Mukdahan, but then thought it would be quicker and easier (and nicer) to go to Pakse. Also I'd like to have a look at the Bolaven plateau. But I'd rather we didn't get left behind at the border because my visa was taking too long!

Any hotel recommendations for Pakse, anyone?

Half a kilo? Blimey, no wonder she was walking a bit strangely. Bet that took a fair bit of KY to insert!

It never ceases to amaze me how people continue to try smuggling drugs into countries with such inhumanely draconian punishments. Poor kid must have been desperate. Or incredibly foolish. Or both.

This is pretty simple. If those images/plain packaging didn't act as a deterrent to some people, Phillip bloody Morris wouldn't be kicking up such a stink over it, would they?

So if you had a business selling pre-packaged cream cakes, and the government of the day suggested that you should cover 85% of your packaging with gross images of medical problems associated with chronic obesity, you'd be quite happy to do so, yes?

I think not.

I think you would (rightly) say that the people who buy your products already know of the risks of eating too many cream cakes, and it's their choice and nothing to do with government. And you might also point out that you spent a lot of money on the design of the pack so that it would stand out among all the other brands of pre-packaged cream cakes on the shelf, hopefully persuading people to buy your product rather than your competitor's product. Because that's what packaging design is all about.

So first they put written warnings on packs, and it had no effect whatsoever on either smoking rates or take-up.

Then it was more of the same, but this time with grotesque photoshopped medico-porn images. And it had no effect whatsoever on either smoking rates or take-up.

And now they want even bigger photoshopped medico-porn images. And that will have absolutely no impact, either. Which anyone with half a brain would anticipate, given the abject failure of previous efforts.

So then they'll say: "I know! Here's a great idea! Let's force the tobacco companies to have plain packs with really big photoshopped medico-porn plastered all over them!"

Oh, the Australians have already done that, haven't they... I bet that little bit of legislation brought a smile to the faces of the Chinese counterfeiters. "Break out the champagne, boys, business is about to boom!"

The anti-tobacco fanatics have no imagination at all. They haven't yet realised that when you lie and exaggerate on a regular basis, like the boy who cried wolf, eventually people stop listening.

Of course the WHO is encouraging the uglification. The organisation is packed with swivel-eyed anti-smoking fanatics, financed to a large part by the big three pharmaceutical companies, who just so happen to have a multi-billion nicotine patch / gum industry riding on the back of smoking bans. Not to mention the even bigger profits they rake in from Altzheimer's and Parkinson's drugs, two diseases that smokers rarely suffer from*. Force 'em to quit, and then clean up when they get one of those degenerative diseases. Nice little scam. No wonder they've poured hundreds of millions into supporting anti-smoking organisations.

*

http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2000/04/parkinsons-inhibitor-fingered-tobacco

http://www.med.monash.edu.au/pharmacology/research/groups/loiacono.html

In fact I posted a comment a week or two ago when this proposal for bigger gross images was first mooted, which I'll copy and paste here, as it remains relevant, and I can't be bothered to re-hash it.

The gross medico-porn has been forced onto cigarette packets in various countries for years now, and there is no evidence that it has had any effect whatsoever either in reducing smoking rates or in reducing take-up rates. Are the Tobacco Control Industry unaware of this fact?

Of course they are not unaware. Dishonesty has been their modus operandi for the past several decades. Their campaign against smoking has not, and never has had anything to do with health, but is based in an ideological hatred of smokers and smoking, and they work with the ethos "the end justifies the means". That is why, despite all the evidence to the contrary, they still plug the 'Second-Hand Smoke is Harmful" myth. And they have been very successful, too. They have managed to get smoking banned just about everywhere by manipulating figures and omitting inconvenient facts and then issuing press releases to a gullible and unquestioning media, who then print verbatim the misinformation they've been fed. And they will adopt the same tactics with graphic images and plain packaging. Expect a blitz of press releases from them lauding the huge success (regardless of the lack of evidence) of plain packaging in Australia in the near future.

But the whole argument over plain packaging / gross images is merely inconsequential posturing on the part of its proponents. They all know (at least, the movers and shakers in Tobacco Control know, perhaps not the indoctrinated drones) that it's all just a part of the process of denormalising smoking and smokers. The vast majority of anti-smoking propaganda is based on a tissue of half-lies and cherry-picked and manipulated statistics; misleading soundbites and appeals to baser emotions. "Think of the children" is the rallying cry.

The Tobacco Control Industry conveniently fails to mention that in the 1998 WHO study by Boffetta et al into the effects of passive smoking , they found absolutely no statistically significant effect on those exposed to SHS, apart from in one area, and that was that children who were brought up in a home where one or both parents smoked were actually 22% LESS LIKELY to develop lung cancer in later life. Yes, that's right, 22% LESS likely. And just to spell that out, it means that being exposed to SHS has a PROTECTIVE effect for children. So much for the 'dangers' of SHS. And so much for "Think of the children".

(Boffetta P et al. "Multicenter case-control studyof exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe," 'Journal of the National Cancer Institute ', October 7, 1998, Vol. 90. Issue 19, pp, 1440-1450.)

Of course, you won't find any trace of that on the ASH website, and obviously the WHO tried to bury the report, because it didn't fit the agenda, but the Sunday Telegraph unearthed it, and published on March 8 1998. Cue much consternation from the Tobacco Control lobby! The damage limitation machine was swung into action, and the report was re-interred.

As everybody who takes an interest in these matters knows. It's not about the children, and it's not about health. It's about the uglification of anything and everything to do with smoking, because Tobacco Control hate it. Simple as that.

And no, I don't work for Big Tobacco.

Would not worry about it, if the plane arrives late at Swampy or an accident hold up on the road and you arrive too late to chckk in at DMK then simply throw away the ticket and buy a new one on the next available fight to Ubon - with any airline.

Ha! Tell that to my wife! She's an accountant by profession, and watches every penny! In fact the ticket with Nok was bought a few weeks ago when they were doing a limited offer, and it only cost 1000 Baht, so even she could swallow that loss without having an apoplectic fit...... I think. However, getting the Nok flight would avoid hanging around in DM after a long (nearly 19hrs to landing at BKK, 24 by the time she arrives in Ubon) series of flights.

On the way back I had only 2 hours from plane doors Suvarnabhumi to final minute check in at Dom Muang. This on a Monday afternoon. It took me 35 mins to clear immigration and customs, and 10 mins to find the rail link bottom floor. A further 5 mins wait for the next city line train through to Phaya Thai. Successfully changed to Mo Chit BTS. Arrived taxi rank (for Dom Muang) with 21 minutes to spare. Explained to taxi driver he would be paid very generously if he could get me to Nok Air Departures in 10 minutes, maximum 15. Dunno how, but I made check in with 2 mins 20 secs to spare. Very very stressful, and not recommended. I was simply not in the mood for 24 hrs overnight in BKK. Next time I will take the more relaxing option!

I think she will have ample tie for the free bus.

Heh! Yes, I've had a couple of connections like that in the past. Not good for the blood pressure, that's for sure! I think the only potential problem would be if the baggage is slow appearing and/or the immigration is busy. Sometimes it can take bloody ages to get through.

My wife will be arriving at BKK (Qatar) in a few weeks at 7 am, and she has an onward flight to Ubon with Nok Air from DMK departing 11.10 am. Is this comfortably achievable using the airport shuttle bus? (Assuming, of course, that her flight arrives on time! ) I'll be doing the same transfer when I arrive in January, but I don't worry so much for myself - I'm used to that kind of stuff. However, I would rather avoid her getting stressed out, as she hasn't had a lot of experience dealing with air travel on her own. Are the shuttle buses every half hour, or every hour? (I did have a look on this forum, but there was nothing recent about it). We're kind of out of touch, as we haven't been back for five years or so, and they've been playing silly buggers with the airports and airlines that use them in the interim. As I understand it, the bus takes about an hour, but will it be longer at 8ish (by the time she clears customs / immigration) in the morning? Rush hour and all that.

I would have thought she will have plenty of time to spare, but neither of us have done the BKK - DMK transfer, so I'm just guessing. If anyone has done the transfer recently, what was the timescale involved? Any dos and don'ts to be aware of?

Rum is definitely my favourite spirit, albeit I'm not much of a spirits drinker, and although I like beer the sheer volume limits my consumption to a couple of bottles, generally. Wine is my poison of choice, but of course when I'm in Thailand the prohibitive cost of wine means that my choices are limited, so I tend to drink Saeng Som and coke.

This new rum sounds interesting, but what is the price in Thailand, I wonder? At $40 - 50 in the US, it sounds pretty expensive. When I buy rum here in Greece, I either buy Havana Club or Pampero (an excellent gold rum from Venezuela), both quality rums and both retailing at about €20. If this new rum is more expensive than that, then I'll stick to Saeng Som with coke and plenty of ice!

I would be interested to try it, though. As pointed out in the Forbes article, there is no reason why Thailand can't produce an excellent rum.

And there is also no reason why it should be any more expensive than rums from the Caribbean.

Flew in from Calcutta to Bkk Jan '72, took a room in the Malaysia hotel. It was air-con, and they must have had it turned down to 22°. Outside temp was about 40°. Three days in, I had a bad chest infection from going in and out of the hotel. Moved from there to a really sleazy little place next to Hua Lamphong station. Overhead fan, nubile wenches, and a cafe downstairs full of drunk and horny GIs on R&R. It was great! I left there with a case of 'Vietnam Rose' unfortunately, which wasn't quite so great. Oh well, swings and roundabouts I guess. Everything comes with a price-tag.

I actually hitch-hiked most of the way south to Malaysia - took a couple of months. People were great; friendly and welcoming. I stayed in a few temples en route, and they were great, too.

That was when I fell in love with Thailand. Things have changed. A lot. And not for the better, unfortunately. However, I still can't break the habit - I'm just a Thai junkie.

One thing I remember about then was the (long distance) bus drivers and conductors. They always looked really slick, with tailored uniforms and flared trousers. The drivers affected a sideways stance when they were driving (must have been very uncomfortable), and their seats were always pitched forward at an angle, so they were half standing, half sitting. They thought it was really cool to drive that way...

Not a good idea. And not necessary, either. I don't see any rampant abuse here, just the occasional troll, and they are usually dealt with fairly rapidly.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I would have thought that a small 'boutique' guest house targeting a particular demographic in Europe / USA via the internet would be relatively stress free. No food, a small bar maybe. Basically the guests look after themselves, all you do is keep the rooms clean and the place up to scratch. Marketing and booking, meet and greet.

Mind you, I am guessing here, as I've never run a guest house / hotel, although I have owned a cocktail bar here in Greece, and that was bloody hard work, even though it was a lot of fun. Doubtless someone with experience in the business will come along and tell me I'm wrong! I don't think I would want to get involved in a bar or restaurant in Thailand - too many businesses chasing too few transient punters, but a guest house with the right location and marketing approach, you have a huge potential customer base who confirm and pay up front. Or maybe I'm missing something vital here!

I was looking at prices for a hotel in Mukdahan for a couple of days in January next year (I thought the SOH and I could do some shopping in Savannakhet), and it was fully booked! Maybe there's some festival there mid January? I didn't think so. Whatever, that looks like good business to me.

Indeed, the causality to second hand smoke is so tenous, I can't believe it wasn't put up as a cover for car emmissions or the oil industry.

There is indeed a school of thought in the medical profession that thinks exactly that; that cigarettes and smoking provided a very convenient (and very conveniently self-inflicted) red herring to divert attention away from the petro-chemical industry. Because the fact remains that although it is the common consensus that smoking causes lung cancer, they have never been able to replicate the process under laboratory conditions. Hundreds of thousands of lab rats and other animals have been exposed to years of forced smoking at rates of up to 500 cigarettes (equivalent) a day, and yet no lab test subject has ever shown any indication of lung cancer. All we have is correlation, and correlation is not causation. For instance, I could say that it has been observed that all over the world, very shortly after cocks start crowing, the sun rises. There is a very strong, indeed undeniable correlation there. However, before I can assert causality (that is that the crowing of the cocks is the reason for the sun rising), I need to provide empirical evidence. And in the link between smoking and lung cancer, empirical evidence is sadly lacking, despite the mega-millions thrown at it.

The whole orthodoxy is based on the research from the 1950s by Richard Doll and Bradford Hill, and yet that research was criticised at the time by Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20^th century, as being essentially flawed. Not only that, but it threw up a number of anomalies, such as the fact that Doll's research found that smokers who inhaled were less likely to get lung cancer than those who didn't inhale. (As an interesting aside, Sir Richard Doll, in his capacity as a world expert on cancer, testified to the Australian government some years back that the many health issues suffered by vets returning from Vietnam were categorically NOT caused by exposure to Agent Orange, a defoliant made by Monsanto and used extensively in the war. After his death, it was discovered that at the time of his testimony, Doll was receiving $1500 per day consultancy fees from - Monsanto!)

http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

And of course we have other anomalies around us, such as the fact that Greece, which has the highest prevalence of smoking in Europe, also has the lowest prevalence of lung cancer and heart disease. Likewise Japan. (Facts that are brushed under the carpet by Tobacco Control, because they don't fit the agenda.)

And some researchers have noted that lung cancer cases have a tendency to cluster in urban areas and along corridors flanking arterial roads, which cannot be explained by smoking.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

These are just a couple of the many realities which lend the lie to the propaganda we are constantly fed about smoking.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

– H. L. Mencken