Tobacco: "one of nature's miracles"
Monday, July 16, 2007 
I have just received a copy of The House Magazine, the parliamentary weekly, that was sent to every MP the week before the introduction of the smoking ban. It included a full page Forest ad (left), drawing attention to our 'Nanny state? No thanks' campaign, plus an article by David Hockney, a member of our Supporters Council. Among other things, David wrote:
The major negative effect of the smoking ban is a terrible loss of faith in parliamentary democracy. It's a great big thing to stop people smoking in pubs after 400 years. It was never mentioned at the last election ... in effect, it was sneaked in. Debate was stifled, obviously to get this passed as quietly as possible ... This is appalling in a social democracy as the UK is supposed to be.
To tell 12 million people they cannot be doing socially what is still a legal thing is odious politics. What will happen is that people will now drink at home. Slowly pubs will close ... new 'public houses' will spring up unofficially in people's living rooms and kitchens, and the relentless push of the pharmaceutical industry will supply peope with 'alternatives' - anti-depressants and painkillers, now heavily advertised in California.
OK, take a pill. But I've always preferred the marvellous calming effects of one of nature's miracles: tobacco.
Reader Comments (7)
Obviously I agree with David Hockney. I find cigarettes the most marvellous things, and I don't want substitutes. I love them exactly as they are.
What I want to know, Simon, is why they didn't listen to the arguments.
Was the 'clincher' the alleged threat by Sir Liam Donaldson that he would resign if the legislation wasn't as far-reaching as he wanted?
If that's true, then why does this unelected person hold so much sway over our lives?
If you don't think that was the 'clincher' it would be interesting to know what was. Any ideas?
Hello well done you on your letter. What I find utter madness is not being able to smoke at Stations even outside. They have waiting rooms for those to wish to escape from us smokers. But to completly ban smoking is utter madness. Take a look at SWT web site and you will see how rude they are about it. I can understand in enclosed places or the underground, but when will they ban drinking at stations I ask?? I feel sorry for people who have to make long journeys Regards Amandah
I went to paste my post (below) on a different platform "I support the Chief Medical Officer" but then noticed that Simon told someone else that smoking issues should be on an appropriate thread, so this is the reason I have posted this here:
Zitori has called for Forest and all other organisations against this ban to demand the resignation of Sir Liam Donaldson. "The reasoning being.....that he has brought dishonour to his profession by using scandalous claims about ETS that are blatant lies, not based on scientific facts, and furthering his fanatical anti-smoking stance with a fraud leading to immense mis-information, and a change of Law, and this CAN be proved in court"
I agree with Zitori, but before Donaldson's resignation can be called for, don't you think that someone, possibly Forest, should set up an enquiry into Donaldson's actual findings which caused him to propose the ban?
Not only should he be made to make his findings public, but he should also be made to prove any such findings scientifically.
There is also a section within this law, which the vast majority seems to have overlooked. If Mr Donaldson findings did, in any way (which we all know is not true) prove that second hand tobacco smoke could be harmful to anyone exposed to it, then why has he also included within the ban, "any" substance that can be rolled into a cigarette or cigar, or pipe, and smoked?
If someone decided to dry out, for instance, some rose petals, roll them and smoke them, then according to the law, based upon Mr Donaldson's findings, they would be harming others. I think this proves beyond a doubt that Mr Donaldson simply cannot stand the thought of anyone "smoking" any substance whatsoever.
Maybe Mr Donaldson's answer to this would be that second hand smoke from "anything" can be dangerous to those exposed to it? But if Mr Donaldson believed this to be true also, along with the rest of his misguided beliefs, then where does this leave open fires in public enclosed places, or candles on birthday cakes, or joss sticks, or open grills in restaurants?
Mr Donaldson must be brought to book. A public enquiry into his findings are a priority, and I do believe that Forest should call for this.
Thanks Peter, lets hope this call can gather some momentum,
If there is any real truth in his claims about smoking then he should have difficulty in proving his claims by scientific fact and not junk science.
The WHO on their website show a poster of the human body claiming 16 parts where smoking causes cancer. The only form of cancer not attributed to smoking is Skin Cancer. However, they add that smokers are 2 - 3 times at greater risk of it.
Another website called Smokersclubinc.com gives a listing of the affect the smoking ban has had in Canada and other countries. It only shows what this ban will achieve in this country s it stands. Some Counties in America have already overturned their Smoking Ban because of the loss of business. America prides itself on being 'the Land of the Free.'
I would like at least one television channel to host a courtroom style debate, where the main protagonists like Sir Ian Donaldson, of the anti-smoking side of the argument can be forensically questioned, and made to produce their evidence. It would be interesting to see what empirical evidence there is about passive smoking.
That other fount of knowledge Professor Konrad Jamrozik (professor of primary care epidemiology) is often quoted. The only problem is, he like many others of his ilk can supply no intrinsic evidence whatsoever to support his 'passive smoking' theories.
Don't you think it's about time to have a proper debate?
Why have all the channels been strangely silent on this?
Answers anyone!
Chris,
I think that the BBC is a government mouthpiece. We have many, many instances of them giving hours to anti smokers and mere seconds (in comparison) to pro-choice groups.
As for the commercial channels, well, just watch the advertisements. When did you last sit and watch a 3 minute ad break and NOT see a smoking cessation product advertised, or some other off the shelf drug? No conspiracy theories needed here: its all about plain old money.
There are no fortunes to be made from telling the truth.