TV debate about ETS? Dream on ...
Wednesday, November 14, 2007 
Commenting on another post, Chris Cyrnik writes: "I have been trying unsucessfully to find a programme maker who would be interested in making a 'Smoking Out The Truth' programme for someone like Channel 4. It would be a courtroom style format where the main protagonists such as epidemiologists and respected medical practitioners would be forensically questioned. There would be no hiding place, and ultimately the truth about 'passive smoking' in particular would be exposed for what it is (a complete myth)."
I think Chris wants me to respond, but he won't like the answer. There are several reasons why it won't happen, but the main one is that the anti-smoking industry will simply refuse to take part. What's in it for them? As far as they're concerned, "there's no debate". Why would they jeopardise their current position by allowing a serious element of doubt to creep into people's minds? Worse, they might even lose the debate!
We've been here before: in November 2004 the Tobacco Manufacturers Association organised a one-day seminar on ETS at the Royal Institution in London. The TMA invited all sides to attend, and speak. The anti-smoking lobby refused. Although it was a private event (open to the media), the antis even attacked the venue, accusing the Royal Institution of being "naive". Full story HERE and must read commentary HERE.
That's the reality and that's why you will never see a balanced, courtroom-style debate about ETS on national television.
Reader Comments (10)
It will have to happen eventually Simon as they can't hide forever. Eventually, circumstances will force them to debate.
I agree with Blad, Simon. Government policy which is not rooted in the wishes of the electorate is hacking off huge numbers of people on many different counts. I've experienced real anger on the part of health professionals towards Government and understand that education professionals are extremely disquieted about the the level and tenor of HMG interference Eventually (unless time robs us of a sufficient mass of people with enough education to apply the faculty of critical analysis) something will give and there will be a backlash. We may never see a "trial" specifically related to smoking bans but the will to support outright persecution of smokers will diminish as part of this backlash. Although there are groups dedicated to fighting their partticular concerns I understand from freedom2choose.info, that, at least, one (sleepwalkprison.com) is cross-specific. I just hope that we all chip away to expose the misinformation and its rocky foundation of our particular concerns and communicate with each other until such a time comes that there is a sufficient mass to band together to take action that effects change. So, although we may never see ETS on "trial" on TV (although wouldn't it make a refreshing change to see something that engages some brain cells!) as part of a bigger picture the scam might very well come tumbling down.
I can see what you are saying Simon and do tend to agree that the anti smoking groups would refuse to take part, however, would it not be possible to 'stage' something along the lines suggested whereby pro-smoking groups represent themselves and, due to the refusal of anti smoking groups to partake, actors play the part. There is enough bullshit out there from the anti smoking lobyists to provide plenty of 'accurate' information for actors to use.
I can guess that when the pro smoking group wins the argument the antis will say that it was not accurate because actors took their place, so can't be believed, but then, the fact that they refuse to take part speaks volumes itself!
We really must try and work around these pathetic liars who would have us all live like hermits, shut in our homes and/or offices, eating next to nothing, as most foods are bad for us, apparently, only drinking water (maybe?) and definitely not smoking or socialising! Heaven forbid, that we should socialise, even through blogs, as we just might get big enough and strong enough to oust them and show them up for what they are!
I don't think it matters one bit whether they take part or not; we know their take and surely the important element is that the other evidence is properly presented. It wouldn't be difficult to write their script for them! Alongside the other point of view. Can't wait and I've been feeling that something like this needs to happen. You can't squash the truth like this. The smoke police are already employed in Camden - and no doubt throughout the land. What a sorry sight with their clipboards. Found any paedophiles yet?
Or a bit of genuine g.b.h.? The whole profile and poor mindset is absolutely sickening. Bring it on, I say, bring it on. It could just start to turn the balance back to some form of sanity.
I think Simon is right, people like this will never jeopardise their livelihoods by agreeing to a televised debate, which they would surely lose. And, to get a major TV channel to show a fake debate, or a debate where only one side shows up, is 99% impossible.
But, there is another way. Why don't we produce our own "debate", where we firstly, interview members of the general public from both sides of the issue. We then organise the actual "debate", calling in as many experts as possible. If, as suspected, the antis refuse to take part, we will firstly, announce this on our programme, and then use actors, quoting from the actual words which the so called anti smoking experts have said in the past.
We could put this on U-Tube, maybe in 2 or 3 parts. It would not get the audience that a major TV channel gets, but if it was good enough, it would start to get people thinking, and who knows, we might then be invited by one of the major TV channels, to make it again, professionally, for them.
I have never put anything onto U-Tube, I don't even know how to, but I have worked as a script writer in the past, and would be more than willing to help as much as possible with that side of things. We would need someone to collect all the relevant facts and figures, also a producer/cameraman/woman, editor, director, and, of course, actors, and interviewer.
Anyone got any ideas on this, tell me what you think, and if you would be willing to help in any way?
Simon
I’m surprised you’re so negative about my idea of a televised courtroom style format inquisition; the non-appearance of anyone from the anti-smoking side of the argument is entirely irrelevant. Here’s why.
Anti-smoking zealots only have opinions and do not possess any scientific evidence to put in the public domain – instead they feed off the scientific community when their interests coincide. We would only be interested in the medical practitioners and epidemiologists who would be only to glad to come forward and perhaps give their reputations a good polish.
Many of these people would have work published in respected journals like the BMJ, and so would be knowledgeable about the various procedures used in the collation of information, they would find it difficult to resist the call to give evidence. Not to do so would invite scepticism or derision as to whether their work had any intrinsic scientific worth or integrity.
Why a courtroom style format? Simple. Each witness called to give evidence would be subject to forensic direct questioning by a barrister, and then the witness would of course be cross examined by the other side, only the salient points would be scrutinised not someone’s opinion. Everything would be nailed down tight. When all the evidence is given then a summing up by both sides will be given before a jury made up of a cross section of the British public, who then decide after some deliberation the validity of whether ‘passive smoking’ does any harm at all – let alone kills anyone.
It could then be decided by the court judge whether the verdict suggests that the case for bringing in the smoking ban ever had any basis in fact.
A normal studio debate would be inferior. Charge and counter charge would ensue, and from time to time applause from the audience for one side or the other would simply allow the whole debate to become worthless and clouded. It has to be a courtroom style format.
Only when our debate enters the public arena will we make any progress. Remember the furore over the ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’; of course you do because it was on mainstream television. I’m still trying to find out who made that documentary…that’s who we want to speak with.
If you don’t mind me saying so Simon…no amount of sucking up to the great and the good at cuddly social events will have any national impact…did your last soirée hit the nine o’clock news…no!
Am I angry enough to try and do something more – you bet your purple spangled jock strap I am…and so should you be!
The thing that occurs to me in all this is the question as to what political advantage there might ever be for a government in repealing or otherwise reducing the smoking ban.
The beauty of it from the anti-smokers point of view is that for a largish majority of the population (75%), the smoking ban involves no sacrifice. Many non-smokers who were not particularly concerned about ETS still prefer the non-smoking environments. So any government considering undoing this evil and stupid law is going to have calculate just how unpopular such a move might be.
I think the best we might hope for is that there will be a gradual decline in observance and enforcement. There will be places that become more smoker-friendly, and to which the authorities will mainly turn a blind eye. Until there are enough complaints (probably organised by ASH), and then there'll be a crackdown, and then another gradual relaxation. Something like this seems to be happening in parts of the US.
A friend and his wife (both smokers) were in New York, recently. They went to a bar, early in the evening, deserted apart from two guys smoking cigars. My friend asked the barmaid if it was ok to smoke, and she said 'sure!' and put an ashtray on the bar for them. My friend then asked the guys smoking the cigars if they had any trouble from the police regarding smoking. They said 'We ARE the police!".
I stopped smoking ten years ago, having started 47 years before. Though I must now be described as a non smoker my heart sinks at the sight of the ban notices at the doorways to pubs and everywhere else. Why? Because they are an outward and visible sign of a spirit of tyranny over individual choice - and of the individual himself or herself. Choice can be provided for very simply, through separate premises or bars augmented by air conditioning. But choice is hated more by prohibitionists than the thing they wish to prohibit. From memory I recall that when smoking was universal non smokers had little or no choice but to live with other people’s smoking. That was unfair. But smokers, in the vast majority a hard working and tolerant breed, have long, I think, been aware of the sensitivities of those who do not smoke. There is no need for the present totalitarian approach. If any other minority totalling 25% of the population were treated with the cruelty and contempt with which smokers are treated the remaining 75% would be up in arms. The prevailing propaganda has disarmed that natural sense of outrage. But we are all in a minority about something or other. Here is a chance for our political parties to bring our instinctive sense of fair play back into focus.
Hello Mark Smith, the bar in New York, which your friends went to, didn't happen to be Tony's bar in Mullberry Street, Little Italy, did it?
I was there a few years ago, and Tony, the owner, did exactly the same, as he smoked huge cigars himself, and encouraged anyone who wanted to, to do the same. Great place.
Mark rightly questions what political advantage there could be for a government to overturn the smoking ban. Probably not much given the lack of actual protest (rather than talk). Smokers need to take action, but not in a way that annoys the general mass of people who are not really interested, but appreciate every bar and cafe being free of smoke. I think that the general public is beginning to now realise that much of what masquerades as science is dishonest propaganda, and many of my aquaintances have to admit that there can be no rational objection to private smoking clubs. What might be the consequences of a large group of people forming a club and signing a joint tenancy agreement to rent premises, or better still buy premises which are zoned for either residential or commercial use. These premises could be used to experiment with various types of aircleaning and conditioning and the results exhibited on You Tube. The club would have no employees and only coffee, tea and prepacked sandwiches would be served.