Smoking behind the wheel a distraction?

On the BBC news website today is a piece on the new Highway Code, it goes on to mention that there are 29 new rules which includes a new safety code for new drivers.

Now being a smoker, and one that does not smoke in the car when young lfb is present, I cannot for the life of me understand how some people actually get their jobs and manage to keep them.

Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick is obviously not a smoker, and has tried to imagine a person lighting up, he states "If you're lighting up with one hand and have a fag in the other hand then obviously you've not got any hands on the wheel."

Now Jim I don't wish to piss on your chips mate, its done one handed you dolt! One only has to put the ciggie between ones lips, once it is in place the lighter is lit and placed at the end of said ciggie, two quick drags and its lit. It also takes about 1.8 seconds, and yes i did time it,and 1.8 was the slowest!!! But then I have experience of smoking behind the wheel, which is more than any of these wankers supporting the ban has! In other words you fuckwit, unless you know what your talking about then shit the fuck up!!

"So I think what we're saying is concentration is very important in the prevention of accidents." he went on to say. Actually no-one ever concentrates more than for about 10 mins in a 20 min journey, our brains cannot cope with the tedium, so it erases the everyday and useless bits. Ask any driver who does the same run day after day, the car almost runs itself! This is because it fucking well does, drivers go into autopilot mode! They do it everyday and guess what very few accidents, over concentration leads to mistakes which lead to minor bumps. But you politicains know about this after all you keep telling us you can change laws etc when we know that you can't as youve given most of the law making to the EU!

Then to compound that fact that they are all fuckwits who couldn't find their arses with both hands, Research Manager for ASH Amanda Sanford chipped in with the ASH strongly supports the move bull.

Amanda Sanford said: "Clearly, smoking while driving can be a distraction and could lead to accidents if people drop the cigarette or drop the ash. "

More bullshit, most people who smoke know the risk of dropping the fag either between the legs or in the foot well. Many have actually done it, including me, and the first thing you do is indicate and pull over, you do not panic! Try asking drivers what they do see how many say it caused a crash or and accident!

"The way it's phrased in the Highway Code is that drivers should avoid being distracted by smoking while they're driving." The Police using their radios whilst driving is not a distraction then? Or is it because they know what they are doing, have done it countless times, oeerr just like the smoker has!
"It seems to be a perfectly sensible measure because the whole business of lighting up involves taking your hands off the wheel, so you're not driving with due care and attention."

No, as with changing gear, you only take one hand off the wheel you thick cunt! As that is all that's needed! Looking in the side and rear view mirrors, looking at the speedo all takes a second, yet this isn't classed as driving without due care and attention! I also think you will find if you actually get of your fat arse and ask the drivers, unless your on the motorway, most people light up at the traffic lights!

Landlord faces trial in Smoking Case...

A BLACKPOOL pub owner accused of flouting the new ban on smoking in public places has made his second appearance in court.

Hugh Howitt, 55, known as Hamish and boss of the Happy Scots Bar on Rigby Road, previously pleaded not guilty to 12 offences of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke free premises. The prosecution - the first of its kind in England since smoking was banned in all enclosed public spaces in the UK - is being brought by Blackpool Council under the Heath Act 2006. Howitt's wife, son and bar manager all pleaded not guilty to charges against them of failing to prevent smoking. His wife Joanne, 41, denied one offence, son Hugh,37, and bar manager Warren Thompson, 25, both denied two offences. All the offences are said to have taken place between July 1 and July 27 . The case was adjourned by Blackpool magistrates to September 5 to fix a trial date.

Professor Peto

It seems that Professor Peto is in the news again, this time the Daily Express, where he makes the following statements:

One of the world's leading experts on the effect of tobacco said the ban could prevent up to half a million deaths a year.

Professor Sir Richard Peto made the forecast based on the experience of the Republic of Ireland, where cigarette sales fell by around 17% after its ban.

A similar trend in England could lead to 1.5 million people quitting smoking, he said, adding: "Half of all smokers are going to be killed by tobacco. If a million people stop smoking who wouldn't otherwise have done so then maybe you'll prevent half a million deaths."

Joe Jackson I believe has done his research well, and I have copied a relevant portion for you to read.

Lung cancer is the disease most strongly associated with smoking, though even this is a statistical rather than a causative link. In other words, it has been statistically shown that smokers are more likely to get lung cancer, rather than scientifically shown that the cancer is specifically caused by the smoking. This is a more important distinction than it might seem. Much of the antismokers’ case is based on statistics, and statistics is not science. It does make sense - so long as you don’t mind bullying people out of their pleasures - to try to bring down the rate of lung cancer by getting people to quit smoking. But the evidence linking smoking with lung cancer is much less convincing than we are led to believe. For one thing, there is much disagreement about what the actual risk factor is.

The general consensus seems to reflect the pioneering studies of Professor Sir Richard Doll in the 1950s and 60s, which are still regarded as ‘benchmarks’. Doll reckoned that about 160 in 100,000 smokers developed lung cancer as opposed to 7 in 100,000 nonsmokers; so you have about a 24 times greater risk if you smoke. This can also be expressed as ‘2,400%’. But beware of estimates of ‘increased risk,’ especially when expressed in percentages; they’re a good sign that someone is trying to frighten, rather than to inform. If you buy 25 lottery tickets instead of one, your chances of winning go up by 2,500%. But though the number sounds impressive, your actual chances of winning are still minuscule.

Likewise, if Prof Doll was right, you still have a 99.8% chance of not getting lung cancer. This is nothing more or less than a re-presentation, or re-packaging, of the same data. But it immediately sounds a lot less scary. Especially if smoking is something you love.

For a fuller picture please go to his site here!

For those that wish to know how Mr Howitts stand on the smoking ban, the Blackpool Gazette has a small piece.

Smoking again !!!

The majority of people reading these comments are obviously online, I would ask them to read and research upon the supposed effects of passive smoking. Use the internet in the way I believe it should be used, to inform and enlighten!

There is or appears to be little correlation between passive smoking and illness, they (anti smoking campaigners) have tried and tried to find a link. They cannot, all there is, is statistics, which as everyone knows are not reliable and can be changed to suit ones way of thinking.

I find it rather strange that Professor Robert West, who is vehemently against smokers, who produces article after article, has had his work funded by the NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) manufacturers, now I am not suggesting he has done anything wrong, but surely, any investigations and research, should not be paid for by companies that have an agenda.

LORD WAKEHAM of the Economic Affairs Committee has made the following comments:

"The foremost authority in this area - Sir Richard Peto, professor of medical statistics at Oxford - told the Committee that the risks from passive smoking are small and difficult to measure.

"Given the miniscule level of risk, the blanket ban on smoking in public places is a case of using the proverbial sledgehammer to obliterate, rather than crack, a rather small and insignificant nut.

"As the risks from passive smoking are tiny, the direct impact on public health is likely to be so small as to be immeasurable.

Yet the same Professor Peto, quoted by Lord Wakeham, has released a statement

"Cigarette smoke is the most important cause of cancer in the world and so the exposure of non-smokers to it is going to cause some risk of death.

"But there is reasonable disagreement as to how big that risk is: smokers kill more smokers than non-smokers.

"However, if this ban helps people who want to stop to manage to do so then it could save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of premature deaths.

"Smoking is still responsible for about 20-25% of all deaths in middle age, and most smokers who die in middle age wouldn't have died if they hadn't smoked.

"Half of all smokers are going to be killed by tobacco. If a million people stop smoking who wouldn't otherwise have done so then maybe you'll prevent half a million deaths.
Now if he made both statements, which one is true, or is he doing as most of the other researchers do, jumping on the band wagon to ensure his funding, ie. towing the party mantra? Or maybe it is as I suspect, he is scaremongering, he doesn't know, has no idea, and he will be long dead and buried before any conclusive evidence comes to light!

I would ask that people go and read a very good piece written by Joe Jackson, who has some interesting views on the smoking debate!

Smoking Ban.....

In Blackpool, there is a small back street bar called the "Crazy Scots Fun Palace", essentially a Scottish bar, but more often filled with sports fans of all types not just your average jock on holiday.

The landlord/owner of this bar has declared that from Sunday 1st July he and his regulars will be holding a "Smoke In", the bar will not close and he will defy the Smoking Ban.

A regular at the bar who does not wish to be named has stated, "We are all really pissed off about this ban, if it was banned in food outlets we could understand, but to take the choice away from ordinary folks who want a pint and a beer is f**king out of order! and the government can go and kiss my Lilly white arse!!"

He went on to mention that he believed the police were not going to police the ban, and as no-one had seen fit to give the supposed council snoopers, powers of detention or arrest, "FFS you don't even have to give your name to the fuckers, so they canny fine you!" His mates/ fellow drinkers went on to say, "Good on the landlord for standing up for the working mans rights to have a beer and a fag!"
The landlord was unavailable for comment, but a member of the bar staff stated, "that he had the intention if fined (£2500.00) of not paying it, and taking it as far as he could through the courts! Anyway I doubt any fucker would get through the door with a camera! Or at least not be able to develop anything other than shots of his own bowels!"

It remains to be seen whether Blackpool Council will be sending in enforcement officers into, what could be a volatile and possibly hostile bar, aimed at making a stand against this law, that is hated by smokers. After all when smokers were asked to stop smoking in parts of pubs set aside for non smokers, they had no problem with complying, but it seems non smokers are not so magnanimous!

This maybe the start of a more concerted effort by publicans to change the law, even Dave West, Millionaire Nightclub owner, has hired Cherie Blair QC, in order to mount a legal challenge against the smoking ban!

As a smoker who has tried and failed to stop smoking in the past, I can see no reason for not allowing the Landlords to decide whether they wanted a smoking or non smoking pub. But then the government couldn't allow that, as that would have left very few opting for a non smoking pub.

No Smoking in Church!!

On 1st of July, the No Smoking ban comes into effect, on that day you can no longer smoke in public buildings. To make sure you know you cannot smoke the Fuckwits that be have decreed that mandatory signs are placed all over public buildings. Now I reckon one of teflon tone's mates own one of these sign manufacturing companies, but that is as they say by the by.

In 100% of churches as far as I am aware, people don't smoke, call it respect, call it what you like, they just don't do it.

So why oh why do churches have to put up signs? (and failure to do so results in them being fined) sorry I just do not get it.

Apparently someone from the Department of Health was quoted in the tabloids as saying "Prominent signs will be required for each entrance. The design of the signs Can be flexible and designed to match surroundings!"

What the fuck are our Churches and Museums, Art Galleries etc going to look like with all the stupid "No Smoking" signs plastered all over them?

It's just more control freakery from the stupid fuckwit blair and his nazi henchmen!! All the signs should be grouped together and forced up every NuLabour politicians arsehole!

Death of our locals?

Walking into my local hostelry, meeting Friends and acquaintances, in the age old ritual of having a few beers with the lads, a couple of jars at the end of the working week. Sitting down in company with the tipple of your choice, be it a pint of bitter or mild, lager or Guinness, your packet of fags close at hand, aah the sheer extravagance of it all.

The old timers sat in the corner, us middle aged buggers nearby, and around us the youngsters, nipping into the local for a few bevvies before hitting the town. The old timers reminiscing about what once was, the middle aged trying to put the world to rights, the youngsters joking and reminding us of how we once were.

Yes there really are pubs still like that in England, I know I visit one, I'm what you call a regular, not specially well known, but a face that people have got to know, and nod at in passing. As I nod and say hello to others that I recognise. Its not a pub full of loud music, its not a pub with a terrific turn over, it just about holds its own and makes a small profit.

All this is going to be gone soon, there's no room for we normal folks, be it the old timers, us middle aged even the youngsters are on their way out, we all are!

How many local pubs are going to lose custom and go to the wall all over a packet of fags?

You see when smoking became frowned upon, and the non smokers started complaining about the smell, and lets be honest its usually the ex smokers that are worst for that, we gave them no smoking areas, tried to keep the smoke away from them, gave them there own space. Did we whinge and moan, nah ever eager to please, we made room! If the Pub was large enough they got their own rooms, but they never stayed in them, they wanted to be where the smokers were, where you can have a laugh, take the piss, act the goat.

Fair enough if the pub served food, then yeah make it non smoking, but a local, that exists not for the smokers but because of them. If that pub doesn't serve food, it should have the right to be a smoking pub, or even a non smoking pub.

But its not going to work, for all that the non smokers state, that they will start going to the pub once its free off all the smoke. They won't, after a few weeks, the pubs will lose its soul, the camaraderie, the laughter, the jokes and then the pub will die, and with it another part of the community will be gone. Another nail in the coffin of the, if not English, then surely the Lancashire way of life, a way thats endured so many trials, so many hardships, fought for so much and expected nothing in return, only to be left in piece.

But this isn't really about smoking, its about control, its about doing as we say and not as we do! I can accept that smoking is bad for you, but its good for non smokers, its got to be, you see, us smokers we die younger than non smokers. So we get to spend less of any pension the state sees fit to give us, which means more brass in the pot for you long lived clever arses that never started smoking. We pay more tax than you non smokers n'all, 4 quid n some change in tax, on a packet of fags that cost 40 pence to make. Aah you say, but you cost the NHS, with your smoking related diseases, bollocks says I, we bloody pay fer t'NHS with tax on us fags!

But anyroad lets not argue, lets sit n sup whilst we can, cause its not over yet, you think you non smokers have won some bloody great battle, well I'll tell thee, tha's won nowt! Cause your bloody next, as god is my judge, i'll make thee that promise.

Lets think on folks what yon governments done fer us,

They stole our pensions, to prop up there own,

They live on steak, but throw us yon bone.

they've sold out the queen, next t'll be throne,

Snoopers are comin, to look round yer 'ome.

yer taxes have risen, many more are yet due,

so why sit n tell me, I hav'nt a clue.

I can ruddy see its coming, for I'm non so blind,

stealin from t'poor, there own pockets to line.

But its to be hoped, as God grants me boon,

Comeuppance is due, and non to soon.

In the style of Samuel Laycock.

LFB_UK 2007.

Many apologies for my going off topic as it were, but I am a lancashire lad, and as oft as not I like to slip back into the native lanky twang.