Trial by jury
Wednesday, January 23, 2008 A curious "event" takes place in London this morning. ASH has commissioned Dr Foster Intelligence to conduct a citizen's jury (sic) on the pros and cons of further tobacco controls. The areas that ASH wish to consider are:
-
Tighter controls on smuggling
-
Increasing tobacco taxation beyond inflation
-
Restricting marketing further including plain packaging and banning product display
-
Banning sales through vending machines
-
Increasing access to smoking cessation services
-
Making nicotine replacement therapy more widely available
-
Increasing "social marketing" campaigns to encourage smokers to quit and discourage young people from starting
-
Promoting voluntary "smokefree homes" especially in homes where children live
-
Banning smoking while driving
-
Banning smoking in front of children
The "jury" will hear from two speakers - Deborah Arnott, director of ASH, who will promote the case for further tobacco control, and Roger Helmer, MEP and chairman of The Freedom Association (above left), who will counter many of her arguments. He will, I'm sure, do a great job. (I know for a fact that he's been very well briefed!!)
A tolerant non-smoker who addressed the Forest reception at last year's Conservative party conference, Roger believes that action against smokers is now a challenge to personal liberty. Our job is to persuade more politicians who share his - and our - view to speak out.
Simon Clark
Roger reports that the event went "just fine". Details to follow.
Reader Comments (39)
A curious "event" takes place in London this morning. ASH has commissioned Dr Foster Intelligence to conduct a citizen's jury (sic) on the pros and cons of further tobacco controls
It is very good that we have Roger Helmer, MEP and chairman of The Freedom Association representing us. How was he chosen?
I would like to suggest that we commission something similar, along these lines, and publish our findings. What do you think?
Not a bad idea at all, Peter, but who is going to pay for it?
I'm sure that Roger Helmer is a highly intelligent and bright fellow, but, however good his debating and persuasive powers may be, and however mendacious and scientifically corrupt ASH's positions may be, we have a really stupid and foolish government. Hence, even if ASH's ideas are show to be deeply flawed, which they are, then the government is still going to follow the ASH line.
In addition, let us not forget that many Labour MPs have not properly grown up and are still wedded to the fashionable causes of the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Some of these causes may be still apposite but many are, of course, well defunct.
I think it is also typical of Forest to take the "reasonable" line, except that the reasonable line has not achieved anything with regard to winning the war against smoking bans and increasing prohibition in a number of areas. The only thing that is going to make the politicians in this country think twice is when the populace finds the courage to take back its freedoms through civil disobedience on a signifiacnt and sustained scale - otherwise it will be business as usual..Ho-Hum.
Any attempt to ban smoking while driving on the grounds of danger should be strongly resisted. Smoking comes way down the list of driver distractions (after passengers, radios satnavs and various others) and is estimated to be associated with no more than 1% of driver distraction accidents (Monash University research report). This subject came up in the news a few weeks ago and Professor Robert West of UCL became embroiled in it (we exchanged email correspondence and it turns out he was misquoted in the press). Neither he nor, I suggest, any other objective scientist would call for smoking in cars to be banned on safety grounds. Having passengers in the car is estimated to more than 10 times as dangerous.
Blad Tolstoy asks who would pay for a similar event, which I suggested.
We have Forest, F2C, The Freedom Association, and The Smoker Magazine, to name just a few.
I am sure that between us, we could drum up enough support to stage manage an event like this?
Forest/The Free Society is currently exploring a series of events/debates to be called You The Jury. One of these would feature smoking.
Let's have more such debates and juries.
The 'Citizens Juries' have already been exposed as a corrupt pantomime designed to produce the 'right' answer.
The question that still stands out more than ever, is how to overcome the so-called liberal media and get the unvarnished truth out to the people of the UK?
Until we crack that singular conundrum, we are all just pissing in the wind.
You will notice that ASH has set the agenda. However would it be possible for Dr Foster Intelligence to ask these questions?
1) How many people died last year from SHS (second hand smoke), and how can members of the general public validate these figures.
2) How does SHS manifest itself in the human body, whereby it is readily identified as an irrefutable cause of death.
3) What medical procedure is carried out to determine that SHS is the primary cause of death
4) Has any pathologist at anytime anywhere in the world, carried out an autopsy and subsequently declared that this person has died of SHS.
5) How many people have died from traffic carbon monoxide poisoning. (passive of course)
6) Have SHS deaths ever been recorded on death certificates, if so by whom.
7) Is Professor Jarvis, the chairman of SCOTH, also a director and trustee of ASH…and would this be considered a conflict of interests.
8) What does ASH mean on its website that ‘Drifting tobacco smoke already kills more people than motor vehicle accidents, all crimes, AIDS, illegal drugs, ect. In other words, you are statistically more likely to be killed by your neighbor’s tobacco smoke than by his car, his gun, or his AIDS virus’
9) What scientific tests have been used to validate this statement…have the results been peer reviewed and published in any medical journal.
10) Finally, is it true that if a resident smokes in an apartment block, their neighbours can approach you for advice on how to have them evicted.
I can’t wait to hear what ASH, or is that TRASH, has to say…bet you can’t either – eh?
Until we have a television programme in the format of a court, where the main protagonists are foresically cross examined so that only empircal evidence emerges...progress will be difficult.
What is the current situation vis-a-vis ASH's charitable-status? Through their practice of flogging legal advice on how to win custody-disputes and sue your neighbour, ASH are to "charity" what the Church of Scientology is to "religion".
Quote:
“We have Forest, F2C, The Freedom Association, and The Smoker Magazine, to name just a few.”
Peter Thrurgood,
As far as I know that’s just a few private blogs owned by life-long nonsmoker. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I think we need to organise oficial smoker organisation.
The blog isn’t assosiation. It can be used to connect and organise people whit similar vew and as wel it can be used to waste own and other peoples time.
The Cult of Ash is an extention of the US anti-smoking crusade, that has skillfully avoided answering any questions for years on the massive fraud, and this is exactly what they are trained to do. NOTHING gets in the way of their agenda, certainly not the truth. Don't expect any difference in this so-called debate. Ash would not be their if there was any chance of being shown up for what they really are, because they do not expect to be GRILLED.
Their prime attack is always to accuse their opponents of 'promoting' smoking and this evil addiction, and therefore putting any questioner on the defensive, so nullifying the question and unfortunately the opponent. It's clever, but routine for them.
"you want freedom? freedom to kill others?
"don't you want to protect your children?
"are you so addicted that you'd let your children suffer? and so on.....
There is no-one who can reason with Ash and their cohorts, we are dealing with extremists,who, not long ago, were thought of as 'fanatical nuttes', but who now have power,and immense finance, so a polite debate is out.
The lies about smoking don't only concern SHS, but primary smoking too, and until they are openly and very forcibly called dispicable liars and cheats in public, and challenged in no uncertain terms to produce the evidence , they will always win any debate by emotional blackmail.
I swear to God.... all this extreme pressure and downward force is going to make a lot of people far sicker than cigarettes. I feel like throwing up every time I see the name ASH, and have to have a cigarette to make myself feel better. (Never fails).
When will these people evolve and understand that pleasure, freedom, a sense of control over one's own life choices, sociability and inclusion are fundamental to people's health?
Irrespective of whether their 'facts' are absolute bunkum, the very notion that 'health' is purely a physical matter and that people are no more than a bunch of organs destined for the government wrapped in skin is idiotic (and repulsive). I begin to wonder whether anti-smoking zealots are, in fact, human. They seem incapable of acknowledging the very aspects of our selves that MAKE us human. They also seem to be totally in denial of the self-evident fact that everyone dies at an entirely indeterminate age, no matter how they live.
Luke, says Quote:
“We have Forest, F2C, The Freedom Association, and The Smoker Magazine, to name just a few.”
Peter Thrurgood,
As far as I know that’s just a few private blogs owned by life-long nonsmoker. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I think we need to organise oficial smoker organisation.
The blog isn’t assosiation. It can be used to connect and organise people whit similar vew and as wel it can be used to waste own and other peoples time.
______________________________________________
What on earth are you talking about Luke? Do you know what a blog is? It sure as hell isn't the organised websites that I mentioned.
I suggest you read up on things before posting such riddiculous comments.
Oh, I forgot to mention, as far as I know, none of the sites Luke mentions, or blogs as he calls them, are owned by life long "non smokers".
There are some damn good comments on this string and I found some of Chris F J Cyrnik's questions to be put to the anti lobby to be excellently framed.
I really wonder though, what is wrong with our national press in that it has failed so dismally to research and expose the tobacco wars for what they are and the damage they do.
In addition to the scientific fraud, we don't need to look beyond our noses for an example of economic damage than the UK this winter and the effects of the ban on whole swathes of the hospitality and entertainment industries. Then, go Stateside, and consider the Master Settlement which represents the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the better off in American history. Consider also the SCHIP programme and its iniquity.
Like everyone here, I could list many negative effects of anti-tobacco's pogroms, but the mainstream press and our media (for the most part) insist on treating the entire topic as one of minor importance. Either that, or theyhave been bought off by corrupting vested interests.
But let's make the issue even bigger. The US dollar is now in deep trouble: in free fall. Consequently, given the huge economic losses incurred by smoking bans (and I do mean HUGE losses - billions of dollars) how much of a contribution have these made to the current condition of the dollar? A great deal I suspect.
Now, I ask again, when are those dickheads in our mainstream press and media going to start discharging their responsibility to the public properly by investigating these issues properly?
As you know Blad, the media, both here and stateside, is only interested in one thing, and that is grabbing headlines before other papers get them.
Give them a good murder, or mugging or rise in interest rates (real or imaginary) and they will jump through hoops for it. Offer them straight forward facts, and the just don't give a damn.
When they are short on news items, what do you see on the front page? Posh Becks ate David's pants or something similar.
If we want to publicise our cause, we need to make waves. "50 people barricade themselves inside a pub and hold 2 day smoke-in" or "Smoke alarms set off in Westminster Abbey" or how about "Doctor hands out cigarettes to depressives?"
It's not going to be easy, but then we did know that right from the start, and especially with the low level of intelligence that we are having to deal with, it's going to be uphill all the way
Smoking calms the nerves. Banning smoking whilst driving will increase incidents of 'Road Rage' and make the roads more dangerous places.
Thank you Blad for your comments.
I still maintain this. We need a courtroom style format programme to be made by an independent film maker, just like they did with the ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’, and we all know what debate was generated from that documentary.
An ordinary studio debate would not give the definition that we require for our cause to succeed. Why? Because studio debates invariably dissolve into charge and counter charge – and with each side point scoring against the other, interspersed with partisan applause – it would be wholly unconstructive, and perhaps even damaging. Certainly no clarity would emerge.
With a courtroom style format each witness is forensically questioned and cross-examined by a good barrister…everything is nailed down tight…and there is no escape or hiding place. Once both sides had presented their case, then a jury would bring in a verdict based on the evidence. This then would leave the judge to sum up, and decide whether or not the ban had any constitutional legitimacy…and therefore was it right to bring in a smoking ban at all. A verdict against the ban would have a massive impact, which would be impossible to ignore, since millions would witness the whole inquisition.
Naturally you would contact the relevant people and organizations to ensure the widest possible publicity.
ASH representation is entirely irrelevant, because only experts in their field would be required, such as epidemiologists, clinicians, pathologists and if they’re willing – a few politicians responsible for enacting the legislation, or those that were connected with it in some way. This kind of involvement by experts would produce intrinsic, empirical evidence and not just woolly-headed opinions – which is ASH’s only contribution to this whole debate. ASH in essence – would be thoroughly discredited beyond all bounds of mitigation.
Once the edifice of falsehood, lies and innuendo about SHS (second hand smoke) – upon which this pernicious ban has been predicated – has been systematically pulled apart then, and only then, will the minds of those that make our laws have no recourse… but to change.
Truth – is one of those immutable laws of the universe…against which there is no appeal.
I wonder Chris F J Cyrnik and Peter Thurgood, if you would like to do a short article each for Pro-Choice Smoking Doctor at:
http://pro-choicesmokingdoctor.blogspot.com/
If so, please contact me at:
bladtolstoy@yahoo.co.uk
Re Chris' and others remarks about the style of debate, just before the ban came into effect Radio 4's "The Moral Maze" addressed the issues concerned. The format is that of a set of panellists who, under the direction of the chair, cross-examine "witnesses" who must defend their standpoint. There is no studio audience. Claire Fox and Melanie Phillips are regular panellists, Michael Buerk chairs and the witnesses are academics or practitioners in the field. It's a programme that tries to dig through the superficial to get to the ethical nub of the issues it discusses and, as such, has managed to avoid the dumbing down which now seems obligatory in TV factual programming.
Unfortunately, comparatively few people listen to radio at the times that this programme is broadcast (8.00pm on Wednesdays with the repeat at 10.00pm on Saturdays). If the broadcast on the ban had had the audience figures enjoyed by TV programmes then it would have exposed the ban for what it is not least because Buerk dismissed the "science" in his introductory remarks and the pro banners position crumbled almost immediately on being challenged.
"The ethical nub" - I like that Joyce. I was thinking earlier today after I made my comment above that that the big questions don't seem to be asked by politicians any longer. Largely because everything is driven by soulless, two-dimensional numbers (presumably so they can get all their so-called 'facts' from computers and not have to engage with the three-dimensionality of electorate at all).
Where have the big ethical debates gone? Where is the deep, philosophical questioning on where society is and where it is heading? I'm sure they're out there, but there is a false belief that the public are too stupid or uninterested to hear it.
I'm reminded of those old cartoons where some stimulus results in character's eyeballs turning into dollar signs accompanied by a 'ker-ching' sound. All other thought is obliterated in the process and they now have tunnel-vision. Except that, with the MPs, it's the numbers associated with their targets and/or perceived popularity.
I wish I had heard that debate you mentioned. I thought (and hoped) that BBC4 might have ventured into this sort of territory.
Another TV advert claiming 19000 SHS fatalities. This time using a home and child, instead of last year's pubs.They're nothing if not predictable.
I urge everyone to complain to the ASA www.asa.org.uk to have this removed and investigated for evidence-names and dates etc.
They cannot be allowed to get away with this garbage any longer.
Struggling Spirit, It's perhaps too late to use the "listen again" facility to hear the programme on the ban but perhaps it's available on the station's podcast facility? If it isn't, Claire Fox is a supporter of FOREST - could those with influence pull strings to make it available?
I worked in higher education during the tail end of the last Tory government and saw the beginning of the attack on liberal, non-vocational education which claimed departments of philosophy among its casualties. How can leaders act from a position of ideology and integrity if they're not even aware that there are "big, ethical questions" or if they believe these questions to be superfluous? The smoking ban, for example, completely flies in the face of Hobbes' philosophy of politics and the UK today is littered with examples of legislation and regulation that offend notions of natural justice.
I think that there is a significant minority of people who are utterly disquieted by the lack of integrity of government. Those people might tune into "The Moral Maze". For the rest there's "The Big Questions" on BBC1 on Sunday mornings which reflects the Zeitgeist.
Quote;
(What on earth are you talking about Luke? Do you know what a blog is? It sure as hell isn't the organised websites that I mentioned.
I suggest you read up on things before posting such riddiculous comments.)
Peter Thurgood,
You could correct me without posting insulting post. I get opinion that your intention wasn’t to correct me but to insult me.
Anyway you can explain to me what conditions give those Blogs or how you call the Web Sites to be called the organised web sites.
Quote;
(Oh, I forgot to mention, as far as I know, none of the sites Luke mentions, or blogs as he calls them, are owned by life long "non smokers".)
It is your opinion against my opinion. On what is based your opinion and on what is based my opinion we can discus if you wish but I am not interesting in future to replay on insulting posts.
Thank you Joyce! I have made a note of those programmes and will listen and view. I didn't know they'd dropped philosophy from education. What a tragedy. I suppose that explains what happened to the subsequent generation(s). I do hope there is a way to listen to the programme you described.
Luke, I can't speak for all the sites previously mentioned, but I do know that Freedom2choose is not just a blog, It may be that you have only seen the 'front page' of their site, but there is a link to their busy forum at the top of that page, where you will find out much more about them and what they are doing.
The other thing to note is that it's the .info F2C you want. (There are a few different F2C's when you Google, which makes it confusing).
This is the one:
http://www.freedom2choose.info/
Luke, neither Freedom to Choose or Forest (two organisations you mention, for example) are just blogs "owned by a non-smoker" unless you are going to the wrong places. It may be confusing for a foreigner but there are three Freedom to Chooses, the most influential of which is: www.freedom2choose.info and, as we have been discovering recently, www.freedom2choose.info is becoming a real thorn in the flesh in certain "governing" circles. (Good, and we get stronger by the week.)
Freedom to Choose is an association and, indeed, it contains a number of very active pro-choice non-smokers as well as hundreds of smokers.
Luke's not a foreigner, he's part of the new Freedom Nation - which has no borders (except against nannies and bullies) and has billions of like-minded citizens across the globe. ;)
(How I'd love to see someone run with that idea).
Luke,
I can confirm that the Chairman of Freedom to Choose smokes around 20 cigarettes a day, has a goodly supply of hand-rolling tobacco in his desk drawer, and has 4 different types of cigars (smoked variously after meals or on long dog walks) and is considering moving on to a pipe. He has smoked for 35 years and enjoys rude good health, despite all the terror stories he reads about smoking.
Sincerely,
Colin Grainger
Chairman
Freedom to Choose.
Blad
I have posted on Open To Debate
Quote;
( “Luke, I can't speak for all the sites previously mentioned, but I do know that Freedom2choose is not just a blog, It may be that you have only seen the 'front page' of their site, but there is a link to their busy forum at the top of that page, where you will find out much more about them and what they are doing.
The other thing to note is that it's the .info F2C you want. (There are a few different F2C's when you Google, which makes it confusing).
This is the one:
http://www.freedom2choose.info/” )
Stragling Spirit, I was on right site. I was hoping that he Freedeom To Chose will grow in formidibile movement and I still hope, but present situation doesn make me optimistic.
For example; Just domain name (http://www.freedom2choose.info/) shows that still isnt any organisation but just web-log or web site. For exsample it will be diferent situation if is ( http://www.freedom2choose.org/).
It is plenty other things that need to be discus about “Freedom To Chose” but that will be gone to far of the topic and I don’t think that Owner of this blog will alow that.
Thank you.
Quote;
( “Luke,
Ican confirm that the Chairman of Freedom to Choose smokes around 20 cigarettes a day, has a goodly supply of hand-rolling tobacco in his desk drawer, and has 4 different types of cigars (smoked variously after meals or on long dog walks) and is considering moving on to a pipe. He has smoked for 35 years and enjoys rude good health, despite all the terror stories he reads about smoking.
Sincerely,
Colin Grainger
Chairman” )
Collin Grainger, thank you. I realy injoied reading your post. I too have smoked for 35 years and same as you I injoy god health dispite, as you rightfully said “the teror storiees about smoking”.
I think that is usefull to know that Chairman of the Freedom To Chose Web Site is a smoker. I hope that in near future you will be The Chairman of the real smoker organisation.
I would like to say a few words more but before, please tell me who is the domain owner of the http://www.freedom2choose.info/.
well all I can say if cigarettes go up in price much more then Im afraid some people will resort to crime to afford them, like some people do to afford illegal drugs. Do we really want to see the crime figures going up futher I dont think so. Cigarettes are going up 11p very soon, we have just had a robbery around our local supermarket and all they took were the cigarettes. Tells you something dosnt it. So if I was ash I would stop this continual harrasement of smokers and get a bloody life. Stop interfering into mine. I dont ask you to pay for them so butt out.Do something positive and go and work for a charity.
Luke, if you go to the forum and register yourself, you can enter the full discussions and make your suggestions there. I read their forums regularly and there are good things happening. I'm sure they would be interested in your views.
Pat, the weird thing is, as far as I know, they ARE a charity.
Luke,
The domain is owned by Freedom to Choose, We are a Constituted association, governed by a committee of six plus myself.
Our membership is made up of smokers and non-smokers from all walks of life, from all regions of the UK. We do not endorse smoking, and neither do we condemn it. People are free to make their own decisions on whether to smoke or not. We do not judge their personal lifestyle choices.
Although some call us a smokers rights group, we are not. We are primarily concerned with righting a wrong. The UK bans were enacted using fraudulent science, and our inept politicians were steered by a biased "independent" committee (SCoTH) and a handful of anti-smokers beset with bereavement issues.
We believe the ban is wrong on all levels: politically, scientifically, morally,and financially. It appears to be floundering. As more and more pub and club operators suffer, the backlash is coming.
Forest are doing their thing, and we are doing ours.
We must be getting something right because resistance is growing stronger and stronger.
Colin,. well it would seem that your declaration of Freedom2Choose's status and position has either stirred up a massive positive interest, or that the anti's have started swamping the site with hits to render it inactive. I'm currently getting a 'bandwidth exceeded' message.
Either way - whether masses of freedom lovers have been stirred, or the antis have been gathered to make a strike against it, it proves that it matters, so it's all good.
I hope the site's bandwidth is increased asap!
It is now taken care of Struggling Spirit!
I contacted our webhosts and increased our site usage from 10GB to 50GB.
Apparently our site had over one million hits from the USA alone, and that took 6GB.
As you say, it is down to successfully attracting readers.
Long may it continue!! Actually, I look forward to upgrading to 100GB if necessary!
Luke, the reason we did not have the suffix ".org" was because someone else already had it. As it happens, we are quite formidable, with not just members but many associates and many hundreds that subscribe to our newsletter. I could say a lot more but I won't at present but make no mistake about it we are beginning to worry some people very much indeed. It would be wise if you took the trouble to learn more before jumping to conclusions which sound like at attempt to be rude.
Blad, I did respond your request by sending you an email. Did you receive it?
Dear struggling spirit, They maybe called a charity but what i meant was a charity that does good like helping the old and the sick.If they are called a charity its a funny charity, they are nothing more then bloody trouble makers and bloody nosey parkers.I dont interfer with their life so I dont expect them to interfer in mine. All they have done with convincing this ridiculous government into implementing a smoking ban is to make people smoke at home in front of the children. How much was spent on educating youngsters of the dangers of hard drugs probably millions, and what has happened the drug problem has multiplied it did no good. Its a matter of choice whether one smokes not some overpaid charity worker who's aim it is to make everyones life a total misery.SAD PEOPLE.
It's OK Pat, I knew what you meant by a 'charity' - I was just stunned to discover that ASH were one. It beggars belief that anything so UNcharitable could ever gain charitable status.
They speak as though no-one ever quit smoking before ASH and NRT came along. Funnily enough, people had been managing just fine for hundreds of years without their 'crusade', and would be managing perfectly well now without them, I'm sure.
They may see themselves as 'saviours' (isn't that scary?) but more people every day are seeing them as destroyers.