Jackson's "admirably ruthless study"
Friday, May 4, 2007 
Joe Jackson's new booklet (download HERE or see previous post HERE) has attracted the attention of Daily Mail columnist Andrew Alexander. Writing in today's paper, the distingished former City editor describes Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State as "an admirably ruthless study of the lies, exaggerations and junk-science of the anti-smoking lobby", adding:
"Governments zealously take up the anti-tobacco cause because it provides an excuse to ban something, which always adds to their feelings of power. They will lie, too, that, though the pressure is only from a handful of activists, they are responding to 'popular demand'.
"That wonderful and convenient phrase usually means the opposite. In the old music hall, when a compere was short of a reason for introducing a talentless act, he would cheerfully fall back on the words: 'And now, by popular demand ...' "
Reader Comments (25)
This is excellent.
Got as far as Daily Mail... Garbage!
Excellent reading. Well researched and balanced as opposed to the lies and vitriol that we smokers have to suffer from the antis. Even so, it is unlikely to make a difference as the holier-than-thou brigade will not open their minds and have a proper debate. They will not entertain any views other than their own and once they have finished with us they will attack some other minority.
I have just come from listening to the election results.As a lifelong labour party supporter I have to say how delighted I am with the kicking the party has been given,I have not voted labour for 44 years to watch them take away my freedom.As for the illiberal,intolerant party it is good to see that the voters on the whole still recognize this bunch of crackpots for what they are,fit only to be in charge of rubbish.In Scotland the anti-freedom SNP have been told quite sharply that the vast majority of the voters there still do not trust them,and who can blame them.Finally I come to the tories,I am led to believe that the majority of their MPs voted against the hateful,spiteful,extremist,intolerant smoking ban,if that is indeed the case I hope that David Cameron will soon announce that one of the first acts of a new tory administration will be to amend the smoking ban in England to one which the majority of voters have asked for,a fair and reasonable act which is based on the right of people to choose,if they don't want that in Scotland,Wales,and Northern Ireland let them go their own way by all means.Give us a radical smoking policy that is fair to all in England Mr.Cameron.
Abbeyfield; Cameron Blair has already said he will not throw out the smoking ban. Quite frankly even if he or any other party leader promised to abolish it I still have a problem with anyone having the power to make such a law in the first place. Even though there isn't a majority of people in the country who want the smoking ban if there were I still don't agree they would have the right to impose one. Democracy at it's best is still mob rule.
We need to have the property rights of everyone fully respected to the hilt. And no matter how many people come and say they have a right to your property, or a right to dictate to you how you can use your property, their demands can not morally be superior to your own property rights.
Abbyfield, If there were to be a change of government after the next general election and the issue of the smoking ban was to be addressed then the fairest approach would be to have another free vote. I wouldn't like to see Prime Minister Cameron dictating that all Conservative MPs must vote for the return of passive smoking in enclosed public places. It's not in the Conservative manifesto anyway.
On a slightly different note, given the fact that smoking is so much more prevalent amongst poorer people and less prevalent amongst the more affluent, isn't it ironic that the Labour party were the first to support smoking restrictions in enclosed public places whilst the Conservatives were dead against it?
I can't argue with the irony, but the underlying trend with both parties is that Labour is traditionally in favour of big government intrusion for the good of the people whilst the conservatives have traditionally a more stand offish approach.
Labout have proven their underlying instincts are still in evidence. I'm not sure the conservative will hold true if they gain office at the next election.
Considering the main political parties haven't published general election manifestos yet, and the free vote system is not a reflection of constituency-focused political representation - I'm surprised you can make such sweeping statements, Robert.
Perhaps the Tories' revived popularity at local government level is more to do with their councillors' focus on their voters needs? And voters are now coming round to the notion that Labour's elitist approach (an MP's free vote being valued more highly than those of their constituents) and moralising centralised government belong at the turn of the last century?
You can vote for the party with the red rosette that will take your money by force and spend it on things you wouldn't choose to or, you can vote for the party with the blue rosette that will take your money by force and spend it on things you wouldn't choose to or, you can vote for the party with some other colour rosette that will take your money by force and spend it on things you wouldn't choose to or, you can vote for none of the above. The problem isn't getting the right people into power it is the power itself.
Tonikt, You are correct in that the Conservative manifesto has yet to be published but David Cameron has given no indication of a future Conservative U turn on the new smoking laws by reversing the previous free vote.
By the time the next general election comes around people will have become so used to clean air in pubs and restaurants it really would seem like a return to the dark ages to reverse it.
The new smoking laws coming in in England on the 1st July are really a fair and happy compromise between the rights of smokers and the non smoking majority. Most people will come to accept that, if they don't do already. My prediction is that,even in just 12 months time, the issue of smoking in enclosed public places just won't interest people. It will just be a non issue and the whole controversy will be remembered as a storm in a teacup.
Robert, banning smoking from all indoor venues EVERYWHERE barring private residences is hardly a fair and happy compromise. Considering we're talking about something that at best is harmless and at worst is less risky than driving even for those who're exposed to it heavily.
Please try and consider something other than your own specific preferences, which is, I suspect the only real factor at work here.
As to your prediction. The Scottish ban is more than 12 months old and the fight is still picking up pace, so you'll forgive me if I don't think much of your prediction.
In fact, how does banning an activity from all premises that offer a modicum of shelter everywhere even qualify as a compromise?!?
I even looked the word up; settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.
No one asked for my consent and I'll bet no one asked the owners consent either.
Rob; Why do you persist in using logic on an automaton?
Just a thought... Joe Jackson's excellent 'Smoke, lies and the nanny state', and Eamonn Mallon's 'Jackboot', would make a formidable combination!
We mustn't lose sight of the fact that whilst traffic accidents do kill about 3000 people annually in this country, smoking in total kills more than 100,000. Therefore, the latter is the bigger issue and in urgent need of addressing. My criticism of this and former governments is the complete lack of any progress in reducing this unneccesary toll.
At last now we have some radical measure to tackle the problem. I have read that most smokers would like to quit the habit, if only they could and many will be using the 1st July sea change as a help in giving up.
Although the principal reason for bringing in the smoking ban in enclosed public places is to protect the majority from breathing in second hand smoke it will help many smokers, who want to give up, to do so. If this then leads to fewer people suffering from smoking induced diseases and early death then it will have proved its worth.
The Scottish smoking ban was mentioned by Rob earlier and its resistance in some quarters. Well, unless I'm reading the wrong newspapers I'm not picking up on lots of fines being issued for defiance or flouting the law. In any case, the great health divide between north and south means that Scotland stands to gain particularly from reductions in smoking prevalence.
Finally, I do have a confession to make - apart from pipe and cigar smoke which have a distinctive aroma of their own, I particularly dislike the smell of cigarette smoke. It smells absolutely awful and is a potent reminder of a toxin that kills too many people needlessly in this country. My support of the new smoking laws, however, are based on more than a mere preference for cleaner smelling air. I genuinely want to see fewer people, especially smokers, having their health ruined by this addiction.
If we could look into the crystal ball and see a future reduction in the annual smoking death toll then surely even the most ardent pro smokers would raise their glasses to that.
We need this booklet into more newpapers. Maybe then people will have the truth, instead of being brainwashed with propaganda.
Robert,
Enforcement of the smoking ban has been patchy across Scotland, with warnings and fixed penalty notices varying from 2 to over 400 between the different councils. I understand that most warnings and notices have been imposed on drivers rather than pubgoers ... probably more drivers than pubgoers infringe the legislation because if you are a driver your employer can't be punished too as the licensee of a pub can be. See http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1931862006
As for smoking rates going down is concerned, that is speculation unsupported by figures so far, see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2405003,00.html , Imperial is thriving in the UK http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=663&id=674942007.
I can't see that the legislation will make people more likely to give up, especially if they resent it.
As far as 100,000 people dying a year as a result of tobacco use, medics seem overly keen to explain the death of a smoker by citing their smoking. Other factors are ruled out. Without a trace of irony they will move on to tell us that alcohol is also very dangerous and kills another x thousand people a year, without mentioning that at least half of them might be the same people who are being killed by smoking, diet and whatever else they do wrong. All other environomental and genetic factors are ruled out of the equation.
Smoking was already in long-term decline.
I don't believe any mainstream party will repeal the blanket smoking ban. Most politicians live in a cosy world of their own and not in the 'real world' where they are confronted with real challenges and subjected to everyday stresses and worries. I would like to find out if there is a political party which is (apart from the Publican Party in Scotland) in favour allowing people the freedom of choice. Politics is now intruding on just about every aspect of ordinary people's lives. This blanket ban is just another example of adults being bossed about by the despots who currently have power. Once they have finished messing up people's freedom of choice in this area, they will move on to another area and psychologically dominate another group of people for doing something they disapprove of. Foxhunting was banned in 2005, now smoking tobacco in pubs/clubs - what next? Whilst people worry about how many people are dying as a result of smoking, there are daily instances of people being knifed, shot at, mugged, robbed and assaulted in various horrible ways and mostly in broad daylight. However, in spite of all this, the prevailing trend is to persecute tobacco smokers. Why? Well, they are an easy target. You can either 'shop' someone for smoking, or you can fine them for dropping a fag end. These new crimes provide easy revenue for authorities as well as a great ego-boost for those people who harbour the urge to dominate others. In short, this blanket ban is a form of bullying and certain individuals are already beginning to enjoy treating others with disdain. It can only get worse.
Can someone explain to me exactly when limiting people's choices on behalf of their health became part of the government's remit?
Can we expect the ID card scheme being used to limit alcohol consumption or McDonalds legally obliged to refuse to serve overweight people.
I wonder Robert if you will be quite so magnanomous when some aspect of YOUR life comes under direct attack, and trust me, unless you're a complete eco-friendly health freak, it's only a matter of time.
But I have to thank you for clearing the matter up. For you this isn't about what's fair or reasonable or even how far a government of a free society should go, for you it's a completely self centred issue. They're making something you don't like illegal. That works for you and so you'll support irrespective of the wider implications.
I also note you never answered the question I posed, so I'll repeat it here. Even given your personal dislike of cigarette smoke why can't SOME place remain smoking and thus still leave you with plenty of choice and give the rest of us a choice as well.
Or are the wants of non-smokers more important than the wants of smokers?
Rob, it would not be practical to allow some venues to allow smoking and others not. It would also be unfair to business as it would not provide a level playing field.
We either make all enclosed public places smoke free or forget about the new smoking laws completely and allow the whole lot to revert to a smoking 'free for all'. If we adopt the latter approach then we're just back to square one.
Rob; I'm afraid the answer is that we do not live in a free society. Haven't done for a very long time now.
We live in a democracy which is a very different thing. Politicians love to use the words freedom and democracy as if they went hand in hand. They don't. Democracy is mob rule and when was the last time you saw a mob that cared a fart for individual rights?
The reason why the likes of ASH and Robert and the BBC and The Guardian and pretty much all other main stream media don't seem to understand the idea of individual freedom is because they have been brought up through state education to become good collectivist citizens who believe that government can pretty much solve any problem and not only has the right to attempt it but also has the duty to do so.
Compare the American Declaration of Independence against the UN Declaration of Human Rights and you will see the difference between these things.
BTW the American Declaration of Independence has so little bearing on American politics today that it may as well have come from a different planet.
Robert said "Rob, it would not be practical to allow some venues to allow smoking and others not. It would also be unfair to business as it would not provide a level playing field."
And yet Spain managed it without any great deal of fuss.
"We either make all enclosed public places smoke free or forget about the new smoking laws completely and allow the whole lot to revert to a smoking 'free for all'. If we adopt the latter approach then we're just back to square one."
And we can't have that. That we would mean putting freedom ahead of infintesimal risk and smell - an almost inconceivable notion these days.
Robert Evans I happen to smoke for my health and giving up would not do me any good at all and it certainly wouldn't be good for the people around me. However, I now have to become a recluse as I cannot go out for a coffee or meal with my husband and enjoy a smoke with it - it is nowhere near so pleasurable without the smoke and I don't have the money to spend on not enjoying myself. There are several business in our small town that will suffer badly as a result of the ban. There are already plenty of cafes and restaurants that are non smoking, so people like you have, for many years, had far more choice than us smokers.
My health by the way is plagued by acute stress and depression and just yesterday my consultant said that the very last thing I should attempt would be to give up smoking! He is however concerned for me, as he is for other patients, that this ban will not help people in our situation because of the enforced isolation many will suffer, which is likely to excacerbate the condition suffered, which smoking,to some extent, relieves.
It is very strange that as smoking has been on the decline for at least a decade and more public places have become non smoking, there has been no lowering of cancer rates or heart disease, but there has been a huge increase in obesity and stress related problems. It doesn't take a genius to work out that something is seriously flawed in the so called research and evidence that ASH and the like have spouted - only the mindless and extremely ignorant can fail to see it.
Yes, like Joe's essay, but have my crits too.
Firstly, he says the government makes approx £10 billion from the taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products. This, as I am given to understand, is the amount, including VAT, on over the counter sales. However, let's not forget the corporation tax levied on the profits of the tobacco companies. That bumps it up another £8 billion or so.
Secondly, he says that smoking has been going on in the Americas for 1,000s of years (it probably has) and for about 500 years in the rest of the world. Wrong! The ancient Egyptians smoked and there is a fascinating article called The Mystery of the Cocaine Mummies" (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/mummies.htm) although you will find more articles if you google: ancient egypt, smoking.
Likewise, shisha/hookah goes back at least to 15th century India and made its way to Turkey 500 years ago. See for i.e: Hookah History and similar sites.
Tons more stuff if you look and should be no surprise because even if tobacco originated in the Americas people were trading across the Bering Strait since the year dot.
Blad,
The Greek Oracles also smoked. They inhaled the smoke from burning laurel leaves, which gave them awareness _ might try that one I have a laurel in my garden! Also Pliney the Elder (a Roman 1st Century Natural Historian who died at Pompeii) writes about a tribe of people who would not leave their houses without first inhaling the smoke from burning gladiola leaves (mmm I also have Gladiolas in my garden!).