Thursday, June 21, 2012

Meglomaniac Anti-Smoker Refuses to Show Humility Towards Centenarian Smoker

A hat tip to Pat Nurse for posting this-

Violet Phillips has just celebrated her 100th birthday and guess what? She's been a life long smoker since the age of 12. Yes, it's true: not all smokers die a premature death.

While many smokers fall ill prematurely, the life of Violet Phillips proves to us is that there is something else, some other factor, in addition to one's lifestyle choice(s) that contributes to the length (or lack of) one's life span. Maybe we should study that. Of course, instead of pondering the thought of why some people live longer than others, despite being a smoker or a non-smoker, we get this typical response from the smug, prohibitionist, anti-smoker establishment:


 Last night British Lung Foundation Scots chief Dr James Cant said: “Violet’s story is extraordinary as very few smokers live to such an old age.”

But he added: “The best birthday present she could give us is to finally quit the habit.”

Now, I'm not saying that smoking is not dangerous for many, but clearly for Violet, it is NOT. At 100 years old, why in the hell would she want to give up smoking?

Instead, it would have been nice to hear British Lung Foundation Scots chief Dr. James say:

"Gee, while we recognize the dangers of smoking, clearly some people are made up of a resistant constitution of sorts...."

Or how about:

"Maybe we could be progressive and study the stem cells of such healthy people, so that maybe we may be able to transfer these stem cells to those with a weaker constitution in the future, thus advancing the wonders of modern science."

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, asking such questions would be blasphemy to the ears of the Neo-Do Gooders of Counter Do Gooderism. We will have no such scientific inquiry. Only prohibition is allowed; and when confronted with an elephant in the room, such as is the case with some smokers living to be 100,  we will be resolute and steadfast in maintaining our absolute ignorance of its presence.

The time for evolution and progress in the medical establishment has long been overdue. Someday modern medicine will deal with the realities of the individual, rather than the one-sized fits all approach of our current day. I dream of the day when there are safer cigarettes for those who are susceptible to smoking related diseases and I also dream of the day where we leave those who are not susceptible to smoking related disease the hell alone. Now that would be progressive.

Enjoy your smokes Violet!

Violet, 100 puts long life down to fags | The Sun |Home Scotland|Scottish News

7 comments:

  1. Excellent analysis and you're spot on. Why oh why can't they open their eyes and look further than the agenda. Medically, they might actually save more lives if they did - if saving lives is really what it's all about.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Why oh why can't they open their eyes and look further than the agenda. Medically, they might actually save more lives if they did - if saving lives is really what it's all about."

    Indeed Pat. If they really wanted to save lives, they would look into all of the various possibilities:-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Or, why can't they also consider the quality of those lives, the happiness quotient, the sociability, the freedom of personal choice over the entire lifetime. It's not just years measured in decimal accuracy but also the quality and happiness of those years, which apparently this woman enjoyed 100 of them, the vast majority of them happily smoking, whether the anti-smoking industry likes it, or not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ..To some people, there is no quality of life unless it's their way of life. It's a very unfortunate and rigid mentality.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agree with your sentiments entirely. Anti-smokers and the health profession in general seem to have no interest in improving the health of smokers.

    However, you comment about "not all smokers die of lung cancer" gives the anti-smoking industry more publicity than the actual statistics should. The National Cancer Institute of the US in 1998 showed that less than 1 in 5 longterm smokers (i.e. started 18 years old and smoked 20 cigs a day until 85 years old) died of lung cancer (see the "Reality Check" at http://www.nosmoke-novote.org/index.htm) and this statistic is presumably also based on the fact that all people who die of lung cancer and are smokers will be put into the "caused by smoking" category - whereas this is probably not always the case.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Freedom-

    "However, you comment about "not all smokers die of lung cancer..."

    I didn't say that (though it's true). I said that not all smokers die prematurely (also true).

    Cheers and Happy 4th of July:-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...(see the "Reality Check" at http://www.nosmoke-novote.org/index.htm) and this statistic is presumably also based on the fact that all people who die of lung cancer and are smokers will be put into the "caused by smoking" category - whereas this is probably not always the case."

      We know that this is not the case:

      "Nearly 80% of New Lung Cancer Cases are Former and Never Smokers-"

      http://www.lungcanceralliance.org/assets/docs/media/LCA%20Funding%20Fact%20Sheet%202011%20Final.pdf

      Delete

There was an error in this gadget