Well where do I start, its been a while since I wrote any sort of blog or journal, but I’ll let you know one thing a lot has been p*ssing me off, like for instance “The UK Smoking Ban” Like it or not, smoking will be banned in all public indoor spaces, for one smoking has always been banned in indoor space for as long as I can remember, and I did’nt mind, I mean its ok people don’t want me selling them a camera (even tho they know f*ck all about it *refere to earlier rant) with a fag in my mouth… sure I can understand that, but they still complain smoking in pubs, smoking in bars, cry cry cry, the f*ckers, I mean if I smoke im not killing you on purpose lol (or if I happen to hate you then maybe im just killing time or your not worth my time to it so ill just kill you with passive smoke you mother f*cker instead), so on friday when the last fag butt will be stubbed out in a pub ashtray, I may pick up a knife instead, I just read this:

“No-one has a right to subject colleagues and workmates to the dangers and hazards of second-hand smoke." - Health Minister Shaun Woodward. F*ck you man, f*ck you with a knife… this knife *DaRn waves a shiny blade beginning to rust with blood from all the former criers*.

So I decide to do a bit of research: what kills quicker, passive smoke or a knife in the head, knife in the head wins 100% of the time…

Any way back to the research: does passive smoking kill (well its passive can it really be that bad…. *Cough *cough sorry)

YOU CAN SKIP THIS NEXT PART...

[Passive smoking: is there convincing evidence that it's harmful?

Last year, the Health Secretary declared that a ban on smoking in public places "will save thousands of lives". None of the restrictions are based on convincing proof that passive smoking kills. It is an assertion that owes a great deal to the sanctimonious superstition that there can be no smoke without death. Reputable scientists admit this. Sir Richard Doll said: "The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."

He was right not to fret. One of the largest studies of the health consequences of secondary smoking was published in the British Medical Journal in 2003. It concluded: "The results do not support a causal relationship between ETS and tobacco-related mortality."

Doctors and scientists who make such statements come under extraordinary pressure to withdraw them. The tragedy, for those who care about truth, reason and scientific method, is that it was not. Profound scepticism about the claim that secondary smoking kills is the only rationally tenable position. Look beyond the lazy political and media consensus that simply assumes that because smoking kills secondary smoking must as well.

Dr Ken Denson, puts it more bluntly: "The ill effects of passive smoking are still intuition rather than scientific fact... All in all, the medical evidence for any deleterious effect of passive smoking is extremely tenuous and it is unlikely that it would ever stand up in a court of law."

Since then, further evidence has been published by the BMJ. In March 2005 it offered fresh data suggesting that passive smoking may kill 11,000 people a year in the UK. The crucial word is "May". If there is a direct causal link between secondary smoking and lung cancer it is so tiny that dedicated campaigners have struggled to identify it. Scotland's Green Party, hardly a promoter of smoking, recently alleged that more Scots are killed by exhaust fumes than by secondary smoke.

Of course secondary smoke can be irritating. Some people detest the smell; others believe it exacerbates their asthma - although it is noteworthy asthma in the UK has risen sharply during a period when the level of smoking has fallen.

But the best summary of the passive smoking debate was provided by Dr Smith said: "I found it disturbing that so many people and organisations referred to the flaws in the study without specifying what they were. Indeed, this debate was much more remarkable for its passion than its precision." That goes for every claim advanced by politicians, charities and health campaigners who demand a smoke-free environment and consider it legitimate to deny freedom to smokers by pretending that their habit harms non-smokers.

research shows that a non-smoker inhales between a 500th and 1,000th of the toxins inhaled by the smoker himself. There is little scientific proof that secondary smoke causes cancer. And, if very little increased risk can be demonstrated for lung cancer, it is beyond improbable that an increased risk can be proven for other smoking-related diseases where the risks for the active smoker are much lower than for cancer.

Those who disagree should remember a lesson from the history of anti-smoking. Doll's post-war study was not the first to prove that smoking caused lung cancer: Nazi scientists had reached the same conclusion 20 years earlier. The resulting evidence was ignored in this country because it came from a tainted source. It was assumed that good science could not come from an evil regime. In the modern-day debate over secondary smoking, campaigners who pretend there is proof that it kills are repeating that historic error in reverse. Excellent motives are producing grotesquely distorted science.]

AND START READIGING AGAIN HERE...

So In summery there’s no real proof the my smoke kills anyone, the logic is that distortions paraded in a good cause are virtuous, I find it alarming that the Government is prepared to base legislation on what is barely more than superstition. Smoking only kills you if you stick the cigarette in your own mouth. To pretend otherwise is mumbo-jumbo.

So what i have to say: if you dont wanna breath my smoke then walk away, or f*ckin stop breathing, and dont complain to me, your the one breathing my smoke, i fucking dont come to your house and start drinking your milk, and you know what if they catch you smoking in a public area they fine you £50, the b*stards i mean i've already paid f*ckin £5 for the f*cking box could you not just leave me alone im concentrating on trying to kill this f*ck right here, oh sh*t thats right theres no proof that smoking kills...

But you are forgetting the positive impact that smokers actually have on society, take for example the amount of tax on the average packet of cigarettes, which thanks to Gordon Brown and his new budget is set to rise by another 17p a 20 box, smokers actually contribute a significant amount to the national economy, combine this with the fact that smoker die earlier (after having contributed more money to the economy) therefore are less of a drain on public expenses in the form of pension payments. also, smokers tend 2 die quicker than these drawn out illnesses caused by old age etc and are less of a drain on the NHS which have to take care of these selfish ppl who have lived healthy lives, exercised regularly, who have not contributed as much in the form of taxes and feel that it is their rite to b taken care of for these reasons

look ill have to leave this here.....
i'm away to get a smoke F*UCKERS ha nbahaha a ah ah ha