Monday
Jun042007
Prohibition road
Monday, June 4, 2007 
Click HERE for a BBC World Service analysis of the effectiveness of smoking bans. It was originally broadcast last Tuesday (29th May) and is only available online until it is replaced by tomorrow's programme. Includes confirmation that anti-smoking campaigners want a ban on the sale of "smoked tobacco" and the replacement of "active smoking" with alternatives (ie "pure nicotine delivery systems").
Reader Comments (50)
Was the irony of that last line intended Simon? "anti-smoking campaigners want a ban on the sale of "smoked tobacco" and the replacement of "active smoking" with alternatives (ie "pure nicotine delivery systems"
Remember the "revelation" of the anti tobacco film, whose name I forget, concerned those same words.
Government is that which prevents people from being responsible for their own actions and interacting with each other on a solely mutual consent basis.
http://www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog/default.asp
Hmmm seems I lost the format of the post I intended. The last para was meant to be like a sig line.
This is what many of us have suspected for some time. The 'it's for your health' argument simply does not add up when compared to the risks of diesel fumes and other, more certain and dangerous, workplace hazards. Most significantly, the fact that the Health & Safety Executive apparently rejected the idea that SHS was a threat (as I understand).
So, what I would like to know is, if the purpose of all of this *is* to ban the sale of smoked tobacco, when on earth are the tobacco companies going to stand up and fight?
I'm getting pretty sick of seeing ordinary people having to do all the fighting and fund their own court cases while tobacco companies sit on their fat profits and watch their customer base get royally screwed.
That is a good question Poppy but it isn't as easy to answer. There are previous laws that prohibit tobacco companies from saying anything at all. They can't advertise at all, they can't sponsor, they can't even talk to their existing customers. It's called free speech I think!
As for fat profits I don't think so. Consider that greater than 80% of the pack price in the UK goes to the government.
"Big" Tobacco is a myth these days in the UK at least.
Bernie, you make good and informed point in which situation is tobacco industry.
At this time we can’t expect any help from tobacco industry. On the other side we can smoke because tobacco industry is still in business. But for how long it will be.
Tobacco industry doesn’t have right to free speech. People that consuming tobacco product still have. But for how long it will be allowed free speech to pro-smoking oriented people.
That was such a lousy prgogramme but what can we expect of the BBC? Biased, only asked the anti-smokers with the exception of Simon and a complete twit like Robert West of Cancer Research UK (CRUK) speaking to boot. CRUK fiddle ther polls on line by the way and its hardly surprising that West then makes the fraudulent claim that 3000 people die each year in the UK from ETS. Prove it Robert West and name 3 you can prove.
This is about the pharma industry, not tobacco.
Also - beware the next planned move, which is to ban smoking outside. According to the D.Mail today 'this legislation is in reserve and does not need to be taken again to Parliament'. I would be so interested to know what drives Mrs. Hewitt (I find it painful to type the name - 'The Hewitt Woman' is a little better). Added to which, we hear in the same paper that smokers may have surgery delayed because 'they take longer to heal'. Oh? And where is that research precisely. My view is that people with small minds NEVER heal unless they change their ways drastically. Personally, I will stay with an organic diet, good fresh air, interesting friends, a good partner, the blessings of life and my fags. Oh yes, and a healthy raft of vits and mins, plus the help of the Almighty (who has been particularly tolerant in my case). We are not in the laundry business; wake up and smell the coffee. It's called life, on a planet that thinks nothing of killing people in the name of democracy - and can't take care of a little personal choice. Then again, neither can most dictators - and their psychology does not stand up to any inspection at all. Health? Poor sods.
P.S. Can't a motivated group of people find the cash to hire the QC and take the suggested judicial review to its proper conclusion? Why is there no money, and no action? We are sleep-walking into a total ban and what is being DONE? It can't cost that much, surely?
This all makes me very angry and very sad. When there are real problems in the world, with people starving to death and getting blown to bits in Iraq and Afghanistan, why do we get SO worked up about this problem? And WHEN are people going to stand up and fight? Soon there will be no liberties left. We will live in a homogenous, bubble-wrapped world, with Nanny breathing down our necks, telling us what is good for us. Safer, perhaps, but joyless, where one cannot take responsibility for themselves or make their own choices. I thought that was what being adult was all about? George Orwell got it about right.
Bernie, thanks for that. Any idea why the tobacco companies have allowed such enormous restrictions on their rights as a legal business?
I really don't understand why they've keeled over in this way. Is it just a case of their getting enough fingers in enough pies that they don't need to care?
Kate, I couldn't agree with you more. The public have completely lost the ability to think critically about anything. Dumbed down into submission by reality TV programmes, the pathetic "triumph" of style over substance, a fear-mongering media, crap journalism and the illusion of a "good" education.
Yes. George Orwell would be horrified to know that his warning had gone unheeded.
Oh gosh, just found this on the TBD site. Had to spread the word.
Looks as though hostile antis are screwing up their own lungs, all by themselves.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=33f03411-8367-4750-aeea-aed79fc0a00d
You are wondering why the Tobacco Industry does not stand up for rights. Well it is simple. Recent news shows that the NHS has got this new deal with Pharma industries over expensive drugs. Strange this comes about when Tony and his cronies are pushing through anti smoking propaganda bans. Why do you think George W Bush wouldn't support the Kyoto Agreement. Texas has ranches, Houston and the Oil Industry. What America wants our government agrees whole-heartedly like the little lambs they are. The Government criticises other countries over Human Rights issues whilst ignoring its own violations of the same.
Too much money in back handers are accepted by politicians and those in entrusted places but do they care about this country. The simple answer is NO. We are overloaded by Muppets. Puppets and mutants. ASH supports the idea that SHS kills thousands so why the McTear versus Imperial Tobacco. That case had nothing to do with SHS. They could not even tell the truth then so why should they be believed now. They should team up with Al Qaeda.
In the news today they tell us about the amount of CO2 placed on us by aeroplanes. This as they rightly claim is far more than all the cars, buses etc. we have on the roads. CO2 is claimed to be the cause of Global Warming which is causing damage to the Ozone Layer. This damage has increased cases of cancer as explained by scientists. Cigarette weren't introduced into this country until the Crimea war in the mid 19th Century. Both the NHS and ASH are eager for us to believe that smoking has greatly reduced and now stands at about 28%. Strange where these figures come from as neither will explain. If these figures were correct, how the hell can they now claim that more people die from smoking related diseases including SHS. I can understand why Lord Harris cannot get any answers from the Chief Medical Officer for England and Wales. Perfect example of the MPM Syndrome I mentioned earlier.
Re: banning smoking outside - next move in York (cf. Beverly Martin's comments).
My husband doesn't smoke but supports us and sent me the following from his workplace in York this morning (5th June): -
We got the following warning today re smoking!
'In anticipation of the forthcoming law York City Council ( The Company's Lead Authority) has contacted us in respect of observations made by their "smoke free officer" (!) who commented that staff were observed smoking in the bus shelter in Rougier St (outside Maynards Newsagent). As this shelter is not compliant with the regulations it will be illegal to smoke there after 1st July 2007. Consequently they "would like to give everyone a fair warning" that they could face an on the spot fine (fixed penalty £80) after this date if they continue to smoke there or no doubt any other public place that is non compliant.'
This is hilarious - this is in the centre of York next to Lendal Bridge near the railway station with huge volumes of traffic and traffic fumes!! and the 'Snooping Pikes' are already out there 'at it'!!!
Jenny, that highlights the sinister side of this and demonstrates why it's not about protecting people from smoking but engineering circumstances to make it harder to smoke.
According to the law smokers now deserve only minimal protection from the elements, whilst indulging outside their own homes.
I noted with dismay the comment from the Cancer research bloke about how they could ban smoking altogether once there was an alternative nicotine delivery system to replace it. I mean, oh my God, you can tell this guy has never smoked as he seems to think it's about the nicotine. It's about the whole act of smoking, just as drinking isn't about the alcohol.
I mean who in their right mind would trade their favourite tipple for an IV drip? But this bloke seems to think a patch or inhaler is as good as a cigarette or cigar. Moron.
Rob - their point is to make it impossible for us to smoke and beat us psychologically into submission. There is more than one sinister aspect to all this. Whilst all this smoker-baiting is taking centre-stage, there is something very significant happening which we (the British Public) are not being informed about. I think I know what it is, but when I told a few colleagues about my predictions some weeks ago, they merely laughed at me and said it couldn't possibly happen. I bet I am proved correct and when I am, people will be very very shocked indeed.
We come on Jenny, don't keep us in the dark. What's your predicition?
I am getting fed up to the teeth with almost everyone on here moaning and complaining about the way we are being treated and the way in which our rights are being taken away from us, but point blank refusing to do anything constructive about it.
What the hell are Forest doing about it? As far as I know, precisely nothing!
We need more than just a collection of irritated voices. Forest seems to do about as much for smoker's rights, as the AA and the RAC do for motorists.
I do not exactly stand up for the Trade Unions in this country, but you have to admit, that because of their solidarity and staunch membership, they did win the workers their rights, and that is exactly what we, the smokers of this country want, our rights!
If Forest cannot, or will not help us, maybe we should start campaigning for another organisation that will. It is no good leaving it until it is too late, we need positive action now. Any ideas anyone?
I'm not sure what the extravagant 'Revolt in Style' dinner at the Savoy is all about.Where does the 'revolt' come in to the evening, when it's being held BEFORE the Ban! If it was held in July, I could understand and applaud the occasion, but this just seems like The last Hurrah for the defeated.
As for the celebrity guests, Anthony Worral Thompson and Andrew Neil,as far as I am aware, they have never uttered a word on TV about this diabolical situation,even though they have direct access to the media,and so where is their courage and commitment? It seems it only appears when preaching to the converted, out of sight of the general public, while slapping each other on the back.
Perhaps, Zitori M, people in the limelight are afraid of being on 'the wrong side' and losing their popularity and positions.
Peter Thurgood mentions he's fed up of us moaning and complaining and doing nothing. Actually, Peter, I submitted my sketch, 'Snooping Pike' to a national satirical journal, but sadly it will not be printed - probably because it has failed to meet their high literary standards, but also because the editorial/readership may be in favour of a blanket ban - I do not know exactly. At least I made an effort in the small way I thought I could. Also, people have come forward to tell us about forthcoming events in Bolton, Hereford, Chester and Euston (London). From little acorns, mighty oak trees grow.
Finally, Rob - I shall keep you guessing - I don't think I need to spell this out because I believe other people are 'on to it' too! Put your thinking cap on!!
Peter Thurgood
Freedom to Choose is one of the groups currently preparing case for judicial review, to challenge the UK government through the courts (www.freedom2choose.co.uk).
In Edinburgh, we have formed a local group of activists who meet face-to-face, rather than in cyberspace. This has brought one or two in from way outside Edinburgh, and more regional groups would be better, but we have started and we are gaining strength and confidence, and starting to raise our public profile. Ultimately it would be nice to have as many 'real' meetings as 'virtual' ones. I can see more groups developing your side of the border in the coming months.
Peter, you sound like a frustrated England football fan taking it out on Frank Lampard. It's understandable that you are angry about what it happening but unreasonable (I think) to turn your anger on the one group that has consistently stood up for smokers over a 28-year period.
During that period Forest has fought all manner of battles. We have been campaigning on public places smoking (PPS) for many, many years, long before most people were even aware that it was under threat.
Since 2003, as I have mentioned before on this blog, we have commissioned regular opinion polls, launched advertising campaigns in national and local newspapers, published and distributed essays and pamphlets, lobbied national and local politicians with a variety of campaign tools, submitted written reports to local and national government, gave evidence (in person) to a variety of government bodies, generated support from public figures such as David Hockney, Antony Worrall Thompson, Joe Jackson and others, conducted hundreds of media interviews, organised special events and ad campaigns at party conferences etc etc etc.
At the moment we are fully stretched handling numerous media requests for interviews, comment and articles in the run-up to the ban. If you want us to organise large-scale marches, rallies, protests - forget it. The demand isn't there. Likewise if you want us to take legal action, we took advice a long time ago and the advice (re smoking in pubs and clubs) was that we would be wasting our time and, more important, our money.
If anyone wants to launch another group, good luck to you. All I would say is, it is important that we stick together and coordinate our efforts (privately and in a professional manner) because fighting among ourselves, especially in public, will achieve nothing.
Jenny, you could well be right that the celebrities are too afraid to speak out. What does that say about our country. Another sign of these disturbing times.
As of what to do,you cannot debate with the fanatical antis, as they have a belief system, a faith that does not recognize the word debate,nor the words choice or compromise. There is no access there, and never will be.
People are very willing to protest against war, poverty etc. but not against a law that they believe, through very successful
propaganda, that includes most smokers too, is for the best in the long run.
But the people wont stand for being conned, once they know they're being conned, so the top priority has to be in making the 'passive smoking fraud' public in a BIG way.That is where high profile 'celebrities with good access to the media, and conviction could really help to start the ball rolling.
I don't intend to comment here often. However, as well as responding to Peter Thurgood's remarks (above), I must reply to Zitori's unfounded comment about Antony Worrall Thompson "never uttering a word on TV" about this "diabolical situation". AWT has been patron of Forest since 2001. Most patrons are merely figureheads. Antony is different. Despite an incredibly hectic schedule, he has frequently taken the time to speak out against smoking bans on television and radio; likewise in magazine and newspaper interviews, when asked. He has also hosted - and spoken at - Forest events at The Groucho Club (where he is a member) and his own restaurant in west London. For someone in his position this is not only unusual, it's also rather brave because he has absolutely nothing to gain by sticking up for his principles in this area. If you're going to criticise someone, check your facts first.
in case I gave the impression that freedom2choose is trying to 'steal' members from Forest nothing could be further from the truth. My view is if you want something done that isn't already being done, do it yourself. But that doesn't mean not supporting people with the same basic aims who are going about things in a different way from the way you would like to go about them.
It is not a case of, should we do this OR this OR that, but of asking CAN we do this AND that AND the next thing, so we don't all have our eggs in the same basket. And if one attempt fails we have others on the back burner that we can go in and support.
Freedom2choose obviously didn't get the same legal advice that Forest got ... we looked for it several years later for one thing. But this is a big movement with a potential membership of millions. We are all in it for different reasons, and we have different aptitudes and approaches.
I do feel we should be doing MUCH more as an active, intelligent (? yes we are; smoking improves the brain. Show me the research that says it doesn't) group.
To be serious - we have to move this Judicial Review along and very, very fast. This summer. How much money does it need? Have we asked any tobacco companies? Who else? Must be some capable peers etc. who smoke. How much does a ruddy QC cost for heaven sake?
On another note, just look at what has happened to this country in ten short years. It is tragic in terms of civil liberty. A new law now(?) also apparently can arrest people 'for harrassing a public figure'. Does that include some of the comments on these pages I wonder? Take it very seriously; the threat is to be locked up under the Mental Health Act. Be very worried.
Just as a further wee comment on health and the heavenly Olympics - £400,000 on a ridiculous logo that a child could have designed, with definite overtones of a damned Swastika (yes it has). Nuremburgh anyone? Keep flapping those arms - health is but a goosestep away for all of us.
Can we please: a) have a time-scale for the QC;
b) combine with other civil liberty groups for
concerted press releases and statements to the media; c) arrange joint public meetings. It needs a concerted and urgent Action Group. Can we do this and soon?
I actually think that Forest has put up a really good fight on smokers' behalf. The debate over the merits or otherwise of the coming smoking laws will be sure to heat up further over the few weeks and to reach a wider audience.
Whilst being true to your convictions, however, I would urge everyone not to get too angry about matters as rising blood pressures do nobody any good..
I would agree with Robert, calm down everyone :) It takes a level head to be political.
As to what can be done - the simple answer is this; write to your MP. Urge your friends who also oppose the ban to write to their MPs. You'll find the number of actual anti smokers is considerably smaller than the number of smokers in this country.
Lets start small - ASH started by campaigning for mandatory no smoking sections in public places.
So lets start with getting smoking shelters exempted from the 50% rule. It makes no logical sense and surely smokers, since they've been kicked out the door should reasonably expect SOME protection from the elements.
Simon can correct me if I'm wrong but the bill makes provision for exemptions (which is why prisons and submarines and some other places are exempt - so we'd only be campaigning for smoking shelters to be added to that list rather than a real amendment to the bill itself.
Rob: Sorry I usually agree with you but your bending over backwards to see the political process as reasonable seems like going over the edge of sanity to me. We know government people and ASH etc. haven't the slightest interest in health. We know they haven't the slightest interest in the well being of smokers outside a pub or of the business of the pub. So what on earth makes you think they will say okay we'll allow smokers to have an outdoor shelter worthy of the name? Why do you think the 50% rule was put there in the first place?
I say stop buying tobacco products in the UK. Go on day trips and stock up so as to stop paying taxes on tobacco to the UK government.
Organize demonstrations or stunts of one kind or another.
Whatever we do I think it daft to think that lobbying or legal challenges will stand a chance in hell. We do not live in a civilized country any more.
http://www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog/default.asp
I've been a distant member of Forest for about 4-5 years now and was initially thrilled to discover an apparently competent organisation out there willing to take matters in hand and ACT on behalf of the beleaguered smoking community.
However, over the years - and i do not intend to cause offence, particularly - as each battle was lost/surrendered along the way, my frustrations reached boiling point at the bland, beige response from Forest, accompanied by soothing noises telling us all not to get "upset".
The same thing is happening now.
I cannot but form the view Simon, that your real function seems to be to mollify the outraged smoker and keep the temperature down, rather than take any concrete action.
I'd welcome your comments on this, and i am sure others would too.
Regards
Donal.
Ive been looking at forest for about three years now. And Ive had the same idea as Donal.
Bernie;
I play a game called airsoft, which is like paintball but played with realistic replica weapons. The Violent Crime Reduction bill would have made buying new guns illegal and killed off the fledgling sport.
There's maybe only 10,000 player in the country, but a lot of us got up in arms and started writing to MPs. Clarke was the home secretary then and Hewitt (I think) was his deputy and they weren't for budging, it was a Baroness in the Lord that picked up the torch and championed out cause and what a good job she did.
Ultimately we got out exemption and airsoft will survive - although we now have to self regulate to an extent.
The point being is enough people get in touch with Westminster with a reasonable request and you might find someone willing to back you up.
There's no point just berating the government for being crap. To get things done you HAVE to play their game, as their is the only game that matters.
sSo start with something small and reasonable - smoking shelters that actually provide shelter.
Simon, I don't need to check my facts, I remember very well seeing AWT on a chat show last year almost apologising for being a smoker, with words something like ' I know I should give up but.....'. At the same time he was sending emails to Forest declaring that maybe we should blockade the M1 as a protest.It sticks in my mind very well. Maybe you missed that show.
Rob; Okay I can see you might find someone like the lady from the Lords. But I think you can only get a sensible response if there is a threat of a large magnitude of lost votes or of great civil unrest. I don't think you will get either of those by starting "small and reasonable". Small and reasonable is not in the least inspiring to angry smokers and pub owners either. We need Big and Radical!
And totally beside the point, I'd never heard of Airsoft but was one of the first to play paintball games in the UK. I was a PR consultant to the original company here and helped to launch new sites and get press, TV and radio coverage. Fantastic game. Nothing else like it.
Smoking shelters?! I'd feel like a leper if I ever set foot in one.
Rob Id say a reasonable starting point is ventilated smoking rooms like those in airports.
I am writing my 'longish' piece now because I shall be out for the rest of the day and evening.
I have been reading all of the above comments carefully. Simon is right that we should remain calm and focused - after all, we all (supporters of Forest, Freedom2choose etc) have the same aim/goal in mind and want compromise, some rights of our own and our own places to go to where we can smoke. Otherwise we'll resemble the characters in the controversial film, Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' (People's Front of Judea, Judean People's Front - where is the Popular Front? he's over there! including the scene where they all fight amongst each other and the Romans simply drag them away.) By the way, that was BANNED, and didn't it do well?!! I went to see it 5 times aged 16/17 (underage)!! Another comment there - when something is banned it becomes attractive! So let's stick together.
New Olympic logo - this looks uncannily like a swastika from a distance and close up resembles the fragmentation of the Union? Well, it does to me anyway. Comment of the times? Symbolic?
History repeats itself - I enjoy watching the programme, History of Modern Britain, and loved watching all the footage of demonstrations/protests re: wage rises, rights being violated etc. etc. Don't we have these any more or are they simply not being given media coverage? I remember those protesting against the foxhunting ban back in 2004 being beaten into submission. However, what would make the British people really really angry? This goes back to the question Rob Simpson asked me yesterday.
Scene - 6th June 2007 - exactly 63 years after the D Day landings when our allied soldiers landed in France and fought for democracy - those people killed during that operation and throughout the wars would be turning in their graves to observe what is happening now to their children and grandchildren - and a lot of them smoked. Our premier is due to stand down in 3 weeks' time - 27th June. That leaves just 3 weeks to leave a legacy. Legislation - we know about that, there's masses of it. Would there be even more legislation imposed upon us, the people, if our country was signed into the EU constitution without a referendum?I may be completely wrong and hope I am, but watch this carefully.
My feeling is that Forest simply believes the government's figures when it says that the majority of people want a smoking ban. I don't understand who Forest is speaking for when they seem to accept government statements regarding turned tides and the will of the people. Every smoker I speak to is FURIOUS at being treated like a second-class citizen and I don't see that anger and fury reflected by Forest at all.
Simon, I don't seek to criticise the efforts (nor do I doubt the efforts) that Forest has made. The Joe Jackson piece is a masterpiece in my view, and I love David Hockney. The Lord Harris document is something I am very grateful for (although the website structure makes it hard to find). AWT was brilliant when I once heard him argue that no-one could possibly object to a solid wall of separation between smoking and non-smoking sections (the fact this was not good enough for the antis should have chilled the bones of anyone with half a brain cell). My hope would be that Forest would take on board what is being said here and reflect smokers' feelings more strongly. That it would respond constructively rather than defensively.
'Battles of ideas' are fine for academics and the upper echelons of society who have the time, security, comfort and head space to engage in philosophical debate, but for people lower down the ladder, this is personal. It is an enormous kick in the teeth, and they really are furious at being treated like children who somehow don't know what they're doing.
The press does not generally reflect the feelings of doctors with regard to denying smokers operations. We are led to believe that doctors support this move, but an analysis of the BMJ's 'rapid response' section shows that many doctors are outraged that they should act as a judge in such matters, and feel that it undermines the Hippocratic Oath. I don't recall seeing this crucial point reflected on this site. I'd like to see less 'acceptance' and more 'digging' to get to the truth.
At last, today, I see some fury from the medical establishment unleashed on the government (see link below). It's not specific to smoking, but it's a great sign. Doctors don't want to be political pawns. If only journalists would take a similar stand, we might start to get somewhere.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2363389.html
Simon seems to think that I am unreasonable in directing my anger at Forest. I disagree entirely. Who else should I be directing my anger at? As far as I am aware, maybe I am wrong, but I thought that Forest were supposed to be acting on behalf of smokers. If they are, and like Simon says, they have been in business for 28 years, where the hell has it got us?
We now have the most draconian laws imaginable, and all our human rights have been taken away from us. Is this a good result after 28 years work? I think not!
Commissioning regular opinion polls? How about a "true" opinion poll then? One that states the truth about how many people actually smoke, not the made up figures produced by the Government. How about producing some real fact to go with it, showing the truth about SHS. How about someone asking why people in Greece and Turkey, and Spain, and China, all smoke more than we here in Britain, yet all live longer (on average) and have less cases of cancer?
We need facts like these given big publicity, not produced and published in some local rag.
It is good that Forest have got a few celebrities on board, but we need many, many more, and we need them speaking on TV and Radio, and in the National Press for all to hear and see.
Simon goes onto say that "If you want us to organise large-scale marches, rallies, protests - forget it. The demand isn't there. Likewise if you want us to take legal action, we took advice a long time ago and the advice (re smoking in pubs and clubs) was that we would be wasting our time and, more important, our money" What an absolute defeatist attitude this is. Who says the demand isn't there? When did anyone commission a poll asking this question? And who gave Forest such "advice" regarding taking legal action long ago? Whoever it was, was in my mind, a coward, and an unknowledgeable one at that!
Lastly, Simon says that we should co-ordinate our efforts "privately". I ask him why? We are not a bunch of criminal planning a big heist that needs to be done in private, we are law abiding citizens, and we need to stand up and speak loudly about our aims and objectives. Speaking in timid little whispers has led to this unlawful ban coming in on July 1st
Jenny; I thought everyone was exaggerating about the olympic logo. Just had a look and you're right about the swastika. I think that is a very appropriate symbol. There are many businesses who are having their premises "compulsorily purchased". The costs of this big jolly for Livingstone et al will be paid by taxpayers, many of whom don't even like sports.
And as for your thought about the EU con I think you may have something there.
Poppy; Yes glad to see the NHS consultants are upset. On the battle of ideas it is true that many smokers don't have time for philosophical debate. But Simon is right about the battle of ideas nonetheless. We don't have to get everyone through a university course. But we do have to stop people automatically thinking the government is a solution for every problem (or even any problem) and we do need people to realize that property rights should exist and are more important than any threat the government can dream up to take them away.
This could be as unsophisticated as "It's mine and so I decide what to do with it and what other people can do with it. You want to ban smoking... first buy your own pub."
In reply to Rob Simpson comment that we should all write to our MPs' I have written to mine Madeleine Moon Bridgend, stating that I feel like a second hand citizen and was now suffering as a result of these smoking bans and was it against my human rights to be segregated, humiliated and punished for being a smoker? I also asked what the government was going to do about the amount of businesses and jobs being lost through the smoking ban and was the goverment big enough to admit the problems associated with the smoking ban and its effect on businesses and society?.
The first reply I had back was that she was " sorry to hear that you feel the smoking ban is an attempt to segregate smokers from the rest of society" and "In the Health Bill in 2005 the government sought to strike the right balance between two principles- freedom of choice and protection from harm."She then went on to quote many statistics admitting that "the number of deaths from secondhand smoke vary widely" and that many other countries had introduced various degrees of smoking bans. She also stated that "the government does plan to monitor the Smoking Ban and there will be a review within three years to assess its effectiveness". She went on to say "I notice that you mentioned that the smoking ban has led to the closure of many pubs and bingo halls. This was certainly the fear of many prior the smoking ban coming into effect, however in Scotland where the smoking ban has been in force since March 2006 a survey has shown that a quarter more Scots are likely to visit pubs more often now; and in Ireland a study has found that the smoking ban has cut air pollution in pubs and improved bar-workers' health." She finished this reply with the fact that because of this she was a supporter of the somking ban.
This reply was not answering the questions I had put to her so I wrote back and added that it was alright quoting these surveys but the fact of the matter is less people have been visiting these establishments contary to what your survey says otherwise these pubs and bingo halls would not have to close down and that is a true representation of the facts and with this in mind do you not believe the government should be reviewing the smoking bans now rather than waiting more years for more jobs and businesses to be lost?.
The reply this time can be summed up with " I do not intend to continue this correspondence".
Mrs Madeleine Moon does not seem to want to answer the hard questions arising from these smoking bans and I still dont know what my human rights are on this matter.
Hi Bernie :) I've had to rush this in the end, because I've been interrupted a gazillion times while trying to write it and ended up pushed for time. I hope it holds together OK as I now have to rush off for a bit.
I didn't mean to imply that the battle of ideas has no place in this (although it is rather late in the day to be relying on that now) It is my view that philosophers, writers, artists, ethicists (if there is such a thing) have a huge - if slow - impact on shaping life and culture. My issue is with the idea that this is *solely* a battle of ideas. I wouldn't have put the battle of ideas and property rights in the same category, personally. One relates to the possibilities of potential avenues and mindshifts, the other relates to law. Two very different areas, in my view.
My main point is that a long-term battle of ideas is not going to pacify the anger and frustration felt right now by ordinary people who are only a few weeks away from being confirmed as second-class citizens and who are looking for hope, inspiration, guidance, facts, avenues of protest, loopholes etc.
I agree with Peter in much of what he says and feel that Forest's efforts would be most effectively spent by disseminating studies and information in a way that is understandable by the masses (as FORCES try to do); by providing a basic course in statistics for all to see (in the way that Dave Hitt does) so that they understand the studies and know what/when to question them; and (most crucially) in countering the anti-smoking propoganda with an EQUAL and opposite reaction.
The public need to know the whole story from all sides. The only reason that this 'crusade' has managed to get as far as it has is because so many people have only heard one side of the story. I do appreciate that Forest offer an alternative position in press articles, but (and this may be journalistically-driven, rather than any fault of Forest's), that position seems to occupy a relatively tiny space in a whole article and never seems to be sufficiently 'heavy' to provide the counterweight that is required.
Since the antis are always quoting polls and studies to support their argument, I would have thought that countering those arguments with larger polls and better studies (and publicising these WIDELY) would do a great deal to get people thinking and questioning again. (Yes, the antis will say the studies were funded by tobacco companies, but the response should be that their studies are funded by vested interests too - and proving it). If no-one is thinking or questioning anything, then any positive results from the 'battle of ideas' cannot filter through society, because the public are reduced to zombies waiting to be told what to do.
I think sometimes that people who have been around a subject, and all the arguments involved in it, for many years (as Forest members have) have a tendency to forget that new people with no previous information are coming to the subject every day. It may be that simply propping up retaliations in the press with real and digestible information for the masses would begin to redress the balance.
Alison. I sympathise. When I was bombarding the home office with letters and questions they routinely evaded the question.
They are obviously just trying to fob you off, but it's important to remember that THEY work for US. Feel free to keep hitting them with letters.
Of course on your own that won't acheve much, but with thousands of people continually shouting they are obliged to take note - that how ASH eventually got its way. The challenge is to find like minded people willing to hit them with posts.
Do you remember Mary Whitehouse? The crusader for morally upstanding and bland TV. When she saw something she found offensive on the TV she could get on the horn to her network of cronies and they'll all start writing letters - whether they'd seen te show or not.
The BBC or ITV would be hit by hundreds of complaint letters, and since people rarely write in to say they DIDN'T find a program offensive, the moral crusaders got their point across. Fortunately they were only a tiny number of old ladies, we've got 14 million smokers to potentially back us up. It's getting people off their arses and convincing them they CAN make a difference.
Alison; I've had the same kind of response. Note how the argument is framed as "striking a balance between freedom of choice and protection from harm". As if they had a right to interfere with either. Then quoting ASH claims and probably also saying "the evidence is overwhelming" as if you hadn't heard of it before.
I agree with Rob about getting people "off their arses" but I think demonstrations and stunts are the way.
I, and probably most of us here, feel like we have woken up in the "invasion of the body snatchers". Everyone we used to think of as being sane and sensible and able to put things right has turned out to already have been taken over.
The government will respond to public pressure but I think that pressure has to be "in public" and often and not just in letters they can ignore whilst giving patronizing replies.
Bernie wrote:
"As if they had a right to interfere with either"
Excellent point.
Getting people off their arses requires that they feel they have good reason to get off their arses. That they are motivated to do so.
They will only do that if they have good reason to question the one-sided 'information' they've been fed. That's where Forest should be pitching it's effort, in my view. As government's 'denormalise' us, Forest could be 'de-programming' the brainwashed who support our denormalisation.
How awful it feels to even have to write words like 'denormalisation' and 'de-programming' when talking of the human race. Welcome to the robotic future. It's arrived.
With regard to Madeleine Moon, I pointed out to her in my second letter that she works for all her constituants and not just those she happens to agree with on issues, and therefore it was her duty to take note of the points I was making and act accordingly on my behalf, but still got no reasonable response.
Do you know if MP s' are accountable to any higher authority when failing to serve their constituants?
On another matter could Forest not set up its own online petition as many people visit this site daily and then present it to parliment.I for one and my husband and many friends would have a day of work to support a petition being presented and if our friends would miss a days work I would imagine many more people would do the same, ( just think if we got 2 million people to take a day of work what an impact that would have),I think its time to make a impact and they would have to listen.
If there is one thing this Government has been good at since they came to power, it is the art of spin. They could sell the proverbial refrigerator to the Eskimos if they put their minds to it. And the way that they have sold the general public regarding the smoking ban is nothing short of pure genius.
As a smoker, like the majority of people on here, I have had numerous "discussions" with this new elite, the non smoker, the recently given up, non smoker, and the very angry non smoker. But not once have I been offered a reasonable argument in their favour. When I quoted several famous people who were smokers and lived to ripe old ages, such as Winston Churchill, I was told, by one person, that Churchill as good as died during the war, and was kept alive, by his doctors just as a figurehead. Frank Sinatra never really smoked either, he used his cigarette as a prop. But time after time they come up with Roy Castle, and use this poor man's name as positive proof that SHS causes cancer.
These poor illiterate fools have been brainwashed so much by our ever loving Nanny Government, that they will use anything and say anything, even at the risk of sounding like complete idiots, to try and get their pathetic cause across.
What I say, is that the time has come, for us, and there are enough of us, to start running a proper campaign to re-educate people. Spin it if you like, like Blair's people do. It worked for them, why don't we make it work for us?
There are enough MPs that smoke, enough actors, writers, broadcasters, even the clergy, we need to lobby them, get the ball rolling. Don't take any notice of people who tell you it will not work because it will if enough people become a part of it.
I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, if the right organisation is formed and offers us a chance to regain our rights once again. How about it, let's hear your ideas?
Good stuff Peter.
On that list of people who smoke there are an amazing number of doctors that could be added.
I'm creating things like t-shirts and posters that can be bought from my site. I will also have an A6 flyer that can be downloaded free and used to print off on printers at home for those who want to hand them out in pubs or shopping centres.
Alison; The "higher power" you asked about is a good question. I have no answer as to who it might be but whoever it is has granted the government to do all manner of mischief that no government should ever have the power to do if they were truly acting in our interest.
Poppy; I'm proud to be considered "denormalized". I never was a fan of "normal" anyway.
http://www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog/default.asp
Peter Thurgood wrote:
“How about someone asking why people in Greece and Turkey, and Spain, and China, all smoke more than we here in Britain, yet all live longer (on average) and have less cases of cancer?”
That is good point and I like to ad a few more;
How about someone asking why people of Japan have longest life span one of lowest case of cancer and far les obesity than any another country and in the same time the hieghst percentige of smoking population is in Japan
A few people dear to mention this fact because anithing that contradict antismoking ideology is BLASHEMY.
All this misery people acepting because of hope to make some health bargain.
I think that we should bear in mind that Winston Churchill was smoker and lived healty life of 91 years and Adolf Hitler was anti smoker and a few years before suicide when he was 56 years olld he had parcinson disease.
Every legislative intervention that makes for smoker life more and more miserable is done in name of the health.
Are population today healthier than what it was 20 years ago or is far less healthy than 20 or 30 years ago.
We need find safe place where people who are not afraid to discuss health and smoking can meet each other. For start it will be good one blog or web page that equally belongs to every member of PRO SANITY MOVEMENT.
I have been doing my own little survey, and please bare in mind that this is not a scientific survey just an observation. But I have found that if a quarter of the population smoke they are against the ban. Out of the remaining three quarters a quarter are fairly libral regarding the whole thing and think it unfair, another quarter probably dont give a flying f**k about the ban and the final quarter are the total anti's who actually want to tell me how to live my life and think breathing SHS means instant death. That means a quarter of the population have got it totally their way and that is because they SHOUTED THE LOUDEST!
I think we need to start shouting!