Tuesday
Oct072008
Definitely worth reading
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 Very good article by Jon Henley in today's Guardian. I particularly liked his reference to "the tireless lobby group, Forest". Full article HERE.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Reader Comments (14)
Typical anti-smoking article with figures plucked out of thin air...A particular rankle is that smoking purportedly costs the NHS money...people will get ill and die whatever we do, whether somebody smokes or not is irrelevant. In fact if smoking leads to an early death then the only way that this costs money is if the lost tax income from smoking is greater than the amount of pension saved
FACTs...
You cannot do a double blind study into the effects of smoking
there is an immense publishing bias in all areas of research on smoking
NO Death certificate has ever had "smoking" on it as cause of death
If smoking were the health hazard that the government say it is .Why hasn't it been banned? answer it brings in an immense amount of revenue AND if one compares life expentancy of smokers v non-smokers , we find that the variation within the groups is greater than between the groups, and when i was at school that meant the comparison was statistically meaningless
What we should be taking action on is the immense health costs associated with the motor-car and petro-chems...but then i expect the labour party are still in bed with them
If there was any truth in the NHS statement about smoking, why would tell us to give up smoking. Any truth on that subject would mean that if we all gave up smoking we would not half the need for the NHS. What a 'Double Whammy' for them. The trouble with the folk in this Country and overseas is, that they believe in any Crap they are told without question. If they gave a little thought to what they are told and investigated the matter only a little, they would realise that they propaganda machine is totally bereft of any common sense.
I read and article on one of the American sites which lists the 10 popular littigation cases. The top one was Medical Negligence. Then came in order, road accidents, work related accidents, Divorce, Drugs, and next was Tobacco litigtion. I think this speaks for itself.
Tobacco became the in word when politicians in this Country invested heavily Rhodesia' Tobacco Industry. However, when Magabe took control as installed President of Zimbabwe they heavily on their stocks. This is the same on the continent. To counteract this, they invested in Pharmi companies. Remember, they don't want us to know what shares they have in any company. The reason is quite simple.
Carciogens are not found in tobacco smoke and this was proved in 1998 and yet, tests claim that this was reduced after these Smoking Bans. Strange though that all these tests were conveniently done during the weeks of heavy rain we had in the summer of 2007 and the Winter of 2007. Just when all windows and doors were closed and stopped the chance of recording carciogens from exhaust fumes.
Just 'Pie in the sky' by clowns trying to justify their Goverment grants. The NHS quotes figures for what it is costing them but conveniently avoids quoting what money they're wasting on antismoking proganda.
If we are living too long for this Government to pay out pensions and that they intend to increase retirement ages then what will happen if this were true. Would any of us ever retire?
I again find it terribly offensive when a sanctimonious, middle class, former "fashion" smoker, bleats on about how the poor and British underclass need saving from the clutches of evil tobbacco and themselves because they are just too thick and miserable to make their own choices..
Have these people got fed up of trying to save the starving in Africa so they now look to give the British poor salvation to ease their own consciences for being born better off and obviously with, what they would consider, a greater sense of intelligence.
Mr Henley, you really should get out more. As someone from the underclass I can tell you that you have it all so very wrong. If people from my class say they want to give up, but are too poor and underpriviledged to try, then I suggest it's because they are so deferential they give in easily to the bullying and coercion by their middle class masters in health, social, and education professions.
Alun C - I think you got it in one in your first paragraph and your final words 'common sense' are very telling.
The number of people in this and other countries that seem to believe they have loads of common sense are totally dillusional, because if they did have they would have seen through this propoganda right from the start!
You are so right in that too many people are just happy to be spoon fed any old Crap and because it comes from charities, the NHS or government, it must be gospel!
Shame about the total apathy of the populace these days - then, when something is outlawed that they enjoy they wonder how it happened!
Almost everything in this article is a lie.
Taking the most smoker prevelant countries in the world, they certainly do NOT live shorter lives, in fact in many cases quite the opposite. The statistics for smoking related disease, are taken from deaths of smokers. Period. Regardless of age or other confounding factors. Total deceitful garbage.
They could be 95 year old overweight alcoholics, but if they smoked then that , of course, would be the ONLY reason for their heart attack. Another smoking statistic. This is FRAUD and it's about time Forest took these pathetic so-called journalists to task about this and all other similar grossly misleading information, instead of seemingly agreeing with the health claims of these idiots, which is losing the battle before you even start.
Lies are their game, and should be exposed at EVERY opportunity, for it is only when they are seen for what they really are, will common sense once again prevail.
I was going to say that the Guardian article made me laugh, but that would be like living in 1938 and saying Goebbels' articles made you laugh.
There is nothing laughable about the publication of a pack of lies set out to demonise any given sector of the general public.
Back in those dark days of the 1930s it was known as propaganda, today we call it spin, but in reality, the two things add up to the same, i.e. Lies.
If I were to set up a company, selling for instance, a product which claimed to make wrinkles disappear immediately, the Advertising Standards would be down on me like a ton of bricks, asking for positive proof that my new product would do what I claimed, and until I could offer that positive proof, I would be banned, quite rightly, from making such claims in my advertising.
The question which we all need answering, is why then, is the Government and their agents, allowed to advertise on TV and in Newspapers, their war on smoking, using blatant lies, with no form of proof offered whatsoever as to its authenticity?
The best they can come up with, is words like "the general consensus is, that second hand smoke kills". Sit back and think about what this actually means. The very word "consensus" does not mean "fact", which they try to make claim that it is.
Business and political analysts have pointed out a number of problems with consensus decision-making. A too-strict requirement of consensus may effectively give a small self-interested minority group veto power over decisions.
Consensus decision-making is susceptible to all forms of groupthink, the most dramatic being the Abilene paradox. In the Abilene paradox, a group can unanimously agree on a course of action that no individual member of the group desires because no one individual is willing to go against the perceived will of the decision-making body.
And this, I am afraid, is what we are up against. A group of consensus decision-makers, masquerading as paragons of virtue, defenders of all that is good in life, battling to save us, from all that is evil.
You might well ask yourselves, what motivates these people to set themselves up as the guardians of our health. Is it really out of pure love for their fellow man, or does something much more sinister lie within its roots?
Do not be fooled, this is purely and simply about money, the same as all big business is. There is nothing wrong with big business, as long as it sets its stall out with a plain and truthful message, i.e., "we sell insurance, we sell property, we sell commercial goods, etc., etc.
Business, like Government and its agents, only becomes corrupt when it starts telling outright lies against its competitors in order to kill off opposition, and to sell a hidden agenda in order to make a profit, which is, of course, exactly what the likes of ASH have done, and are still doing in their all out war against the smoker.
It doesn't take the brain of Britain, or any of the other anti-smoking countries, to stop and wonder why our Governments are so keen on stopping so many people from smoking, especially when they earn such a massive source of income from it.
Only a fool would wish to throw away all that money wouldn't they? Not if they had an even bigger source of income to replace it they wouldn't, and that is exactly where the big pharmaceutical companies come in.
Not only will Big Pharma charge you to get you off the smoking hook, but they'll also manage to hook you on something else, which will cost you even more, so Big Pharma, Big Government and Big ASH are laughing all the way to the bank, at our expense.
So, what can we do about it? The point is more like, what are we "going" to do about it. We can sit back and take it, or we can stand up and be counted.
Me, I'm all for standing up. I want to be seen and to be counted.
Pat, I found it offensive too that John Henley’s piece in the Guardian suggested that poorer people were more likely to smoke. Anyway, since there are more poorer people than rich, I would have thought this obvious.
Simon thinks this was a good article…why, because he gives lip service to the pro smoking side by quoting a few of your words. Don’t kid yourself; this was a heavily weighted article in favour of the smoking ban.
He mention’s the word ‘habit’ no less than 6 times throughout; to me smoking my pipe is a pleasurable pastime and not a ‘habit’.
He gives overwhelming prominence to Professor Martin Jarvis, a psychologist at University College London, and Deborah Arnott, president of ASH (action on smoking and health), who says, "The more deprived your circumstances, the more likely you are to smoke." What total rubbish, this has never been true. People smoke from all strata’s of society whatever their socio-economic status.
Professor Martin Jarvis, this over quoted man in this article also says this, "Smokers in lower socio-economic groups, are addicted to a higher hit. Their nicotine addiction is stronger." What kind of stupid nonsense is that. I come from a working class background and so I somehow develop a stronger nicotine hit than someone who has more money than me…and this from a professor…professor of what – twaddle!
I’m going to the toilet now…first I’ll print this crap (no pun intended)…then I’ll wipe my bottom with it!
The part of this article which mentions class, seems to have really hit a nerve here, which to my mind, means that the authors of this piece must have really done their homework on this.
Apart from the very odd leftie, of the Marxist persuasion perhaps, I have never heard of anyone, who relishes in being called "lower class".
Lower class doesn't just denote a lack of money, it also denigrates the subject, placing them in a class which lacks intelligence and learning. So to say that the vast majority of smokers are lower class, is just about the biggest insult you could reign upon them.
Can you imagine being stopped in the street by someone doing a poll, and they asked you what category you fit into best, Upper class, Middle class or Lower class, would anyone honestly say they were lower class?
So the spin-meisters have seized on this phrase and used it against the smoker, in the hope that not wanting to appear stupid, he or she would move up the social ladder, and become middle or upper, by simply giving up smoking.
"What a jolly good wheeze chaps", you can almost hear them saying it can't you? The difference is that this "wheeze" is so bloody obvious, that it shows they, who should be obeyed, as the stupid ones, not the smokers.
I wonder what class they would have put Winston Churchill in, were he alive today, would he be one of the stupid ones as well?
I agree Peter .. but I for one am happy to be in the underclass (which is my cultural place rather than my socio-economic position) and I'm damn proud of it.
I used to be working class until it became split and half of it moved upwards socially and began to look down on those of us that were left behind during the “Thatcher Years“.
Now they feel guilty about it, it’s no good trying to tell us poor souls that they know what’s best for us.
The underclasses and working classes are easy targets for anti-smokers who have a listening ear in media softwits like the Guardian writers who think themselves more morally fit to decide the fate of those from a lower class who are not stupid - just not politically active, aware or even interested.
Someone previously posted a comment on this blog about how the lower classes are used to having things done to them and so they just take it all on board with yet another heavy sigh ….
They do, and then they work their way around it, often falling foul of the law to maintain their own lifestyles, and then get called “scum” for using their initiative.
The pro-choice argument is hard to beat when using the intelligent upper classes’ - the ones they call the "Champagne Charlies“ at Forest - right to choose.
They can only win the war on smoking by claiming to speak up for those less fortunate, who in truth they really don‘t give a damn about but it lends them ammunition to chuck at weak and stupid politicians and the rest of society to bolster their anti-smoking message.
The social class and smoking argument must be shot down in flames before it takes further hold. It’s false, it’s offensive, and it’s patronising.
I don’t think badly of Simon for being proud of the mention that Forest gets. Yes, it was the only positive point in an awfully biased piece of , ah-hem, “journalism” and for that we pro-choicers from whatever class should be grateful.
At least it lets people know that there is opposition and the more Forest is mentioned, the more people hear about it, and through it other pro-choice groups, the greater the strength we can achieve.
Who knows, one day we might even win!
It has all gone off in the Guardian, someone has just posted a letter that ASH sent to Glaxo SmithKline Beecham showing that ASH helped GSK to advertise their smoking cestation products and they hold or have held shares in GSK. Worth a read as even Debs Arnott is involved and is on page 3.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/07/smoking.health?commentpage=3&commentposted=1
It's about time ASH started being exposed. They pooh-pooh any pro-arguement for choice whenever they can with sweeping statements that they're all linked in some way to tobacco companies and so cannot be trusted. What hypocrites ASH are.
They're receiving funding from Big Pharma good time. So what's the difference?
I just hope that this is pounced on and exposed big-time. The majority of the country are in dream-noddy land, believing that ASH are lobbying for the interests of health! They're causing many health problems and inequalities with their relentless lies.
Peter and Pat -
Great posts from you both (as usual).
Yes, it seems that we have a new form of 'Class Warfare' - and what an unpleasant sight it is !
"A new day has dawned - has it not ?" (T Blair)
I'm afraid that I'm as guilty of social stereotyping as the antis.
In my view, raging antis are joyless, fearful, puritans and I can't imagine anything worse than being invited to dinner (no, really, I can't - I speak from experience!). You're invited to sit in an anodyne sitting room where all the furnishings are tastefully co-ordinated in shades of beige and if it weren't for the dainty little amber pendant worn by Muriel, your hostess, you'd lose her in the upholstery. While the latest triple scents air 'freshener' assaults your nostrils, you're offered a choice of orange juice or a light, white plonk which was bought solely because it was on offer. If you accept the orange juice then you're never offered an alternative all (endless) evening and, if the wine, never a top-up until your glass has been empty for half an hour. Muriel has invited other people with whom you've nothing in common except she owes you all an invite and is 'getting it all over and done with' in one fell swoop. Everyone perches on their seat terrified to relax in case they flatten the cushions until it's time to sit at the table. Ever mindful that 'you are what you eat', Muriel starts with a few (undressed) prawns served on a bed of wilted leaves. There is no salt cellar on the table. For the main course, Muriel's pushed the boat out and serves lean, extra thin grilled pork steaks with roasted vegetables which Jamie Oliver has assured her are delicious but which are burnt and swimmiing in olive oil. There is no pudding. Cheese - what Muriel fondly imagines is fancy cheese - is produced (it's cheddar with bits of apricot) and a few table water biscuits. Then what passes for coffee. There is no brandy, whisky or liqueurs, no conversation worth lingering over and no music worth listening to. At 10.00pm Muriel and her husband (who is so boring I haven't given him a name) impolitely start to yawn, little realising that I've been waiting for this moment when I can, politely, leave. Thank God we've both done our duty and I'll never be invited back.
On the subject of stereotyping of smokers, I think that an effective reaction would be if we, en masse, really glamourised smoking by using cigarette holders, cases and lighters. We should also never, ever huddle!
BTW I read in the paper that a study has found that smokers significantly reduce their chances of lung cancer by regularly drinking red wine (but being an epidemiological study, it's probably not to be believed!). Anyway, who needs an excuse...
HIDING BEHIND CHILDREN TO GET AT UNDERCLASS SMOKERS
The current use of children as a weapon by the anti-smoking industry to get at their parents reminds me of a conversation with a SmokeFree communication officer about 10 years ago.
I was writing a paid-for health supplement and was asked to re-write some information on smoking, which included all the usual tripe, but I put my foot down and said I wouldn't unless I could put both sides of the argument - something I'd never seen before on this subject.
This involved me having to ask "permission" from the client - a SmokeFree branch - and the communication officer had this to say :
"We know that there will always be a hardened group of smokers who will never want to give up and we will never reach them. We do recognise that the last Bastion of smokers are on council estates. By all means do put the other side. It would be intersting to find out why the message that smoking kills doesn't get through."
Now that smokers' children are being used to harrass them into giving up --- or else (we'll take your children off you one day as soon as we get the support from Govt) ---- could it be that the antis have found that the only way to get their "message" over to those who don't really want to hear it is through their children.
And they call us smokers anti-social. It's despicable!