Councils under fire

Forest's Neil Rafferty (left) has written THIS post for Conservative Home, one of the leading Tory blogs. Comments welcome.

Comments

[Joyce]

I notice that Neil mentions my local council in his article. It intends, apparently, to ban smoking in parks and - at bus stops. To quote our visiting anti-smoking friend, "You couldn't make it up".

I intend to take issue with this. I think that there might be an LA ombudsman but if anyone knows of any other watchdog or any other body to which they're accountable, I'd be grateful to hear.

[Mary, Smoker]

Hi Neil, I was sickened by this news and the comments made by Con. councillor Michael Stark.
It proves to me that both Labour and Conservitives are on the same wave length.
I will e-mail to voice my concerns but they will lie (maybe even to themselves) that they are right.
The children in care will be the ones to suffer from this shameless dash to attack smokers.
There will be even more young children left in 'care' because of these cruel councillors.

[john]

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.
--Voltaire

[Lyn]

I have just left this post as a response to Neil's article. Sorry it is a bit long and some of you will have seen this report before, but I think it is worth reading again!

How hypocritical can these councils be? Stopping smoking wherever they can in the name of protecting children, when so many of them are reducing speed limits to a mandatory 20mph, which is far more harmful to children than any number of people around them smoking! Children being far more at risk than adults due to the fact they are closer to vehicle exhausts! See below:

Convicting The Innocent?
Martin Hensman
18th August 2008.
The starting point is to lay before readers two fundamental principles of British law.

These are that
Every man is presumed innocent until guilt is proven and
Guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt
The law banning smoking in public places was introduced in order to allegedly protect non-smokers from the risks posed by ETS (passive smoke). Had Government taken steps to protect smokers from the ill effects of the recreational use of tobacco products following the presentation of incontrovertible evidence a total ban would have been justified.

Today we learn that
Scientists have identified a new form of air pollutant which replicates the damage to humans caused by cigarette smoke.

Hmm. Is it possible that passive smoking may not be the cause of lung cancer in non smokers, I ask?

Research presented at the national meeting of the American Chemical Society finds newly-detected 'persistent free radical' molecules explain why those who do not smoke often succumb to the same diseases as tobacco smokers.
And where do we find these newly-detected free radical molecules?
Breathing in the exhaust from a passing car might result in their inhalation.

And how common are they and how long lasting is their effect? H. Barry Dellinger of Louisiana State University explained that

We found that persistent radicals can last indefinitely on airborne fine particles. So you're never going to get away from them. Unfortunately the particles have a lasting damaging effect once inhaled. They damage DNA and cells more widely and, it is suggested, contribute to the cases of lung cancer in non-smokers.
Link to article >>> New pollutant mirrors smoking damage
In scientific studies is it not impossible to determine that the subjects of such studies have not already been exposed to cancer causing agents other than tobacco smoke? Perhaps this is why precautionary steps to minimise the impact of vehicle emissions on Human Health are suggested by the British Lung Foundation, who in their fact-sheet Air pollution and your lungs advise us that -
Cars are a major source of air pollution in our Cities…If air pollution is to be controlled we need to adopt strict air quality standards". They recommend that "people exposed to urban pollution for any length of time should consider protecting their lungs with a mask".
Additionally, according to the European Environment Agency…..
traffic-related air pollution is still one of the most pressing problems in urban areas. Evidence of the adverse health effects of fine particulate matter is continuously emerging and it is alarming that most of the traffic-related emissions are in the fine particulates range (< PM2.5). Human exposure to increased pollutant concentrations in densely populated urban areas is high. Air quality limit values, which are aimed at protecting public health, are frequently exceeded especially in streets and other urban hotspots. Source. Download full technical report

For an in depth critical analysis and a holistic overview of many of the presenting issues please consider carefully the arguments presented within
THE ANTI-TOBACCO FRAUD: VESTED INTERESTS AND THE INVERSION OF TRUTHFULNESS
Conclusion
I submit that the above findings introduce more than an element of doubt into the ongoing debate concerning the merits or otherwise of the existing smoking ban. For example, human beings do not inhabit a totally sterile environment, do they? Who is able to prove with absolute certainty that ill health is caused by just one of a multitude of causative agents that we encounter daily in our polluted environment?

The politicians have, on the basis of uncertain evidence, already convicted smokers as citizens who harm others. They insist that the weapon used is 'passive smoke'.

The consequence of false conviction is miscarriage of justice. This should be of concern to both smokers and non-smokers alike. I submit that if the smoking ban is truly founded on scientific uncertainty that we are already witnessing many unwelcome outcomes. Some of these: for example the accelerating decline of our hospitality industry and associated job losses, are already clearly visible.
In falling victim to the media hype generated by the anti-tobacco control movement haven't we already convicted the innocent?
Martin Hensman M.Inst. L.Ex, LLB (Hons)

Of course, in my opinion which appears to be backed up by this report, all the time the government and others are insisting on slowing traffic speeds, often to 20 mph the more pollution of this type is being generated as cars driven at these low speeds do not run efficiently and spew out far greater amounts of harmful 'persistent free radical' molecules!
This brings me back to the conspiracy theory that the government actually need to kill more of us off at an early age as they are unable to fund pensions and by chucking all smokers outdoors to smoke we are more likely to be adversely affected by exhaust fumes than smoking, but of course, the innocent ciggie will still get the blame!

[ann]

Yes indeed kill off the indiginous citizens, and save money on their pensions thats fast disappearing from the pot, kick out the bed blockers, that their so font of calling us, from hospitals and nursing homes and let the 'new english' unpensioned, contract and work permit workers take over. Then govt could have the type of nazi run country that they're aspiring to because by then it wouldnt even be cost effective to ban smoking at all.