In the name of democracy, sign here
Monday, February 18, 2008 Rarely a week goes by without a request to sign or promote some new petition or other. Most of them have been posted on the 10 Downing Street website and I always decline. I'm sorry, but I have no intention of playing No 10's silly little game. It's an 18 carat gimmick, and I'm surprised so many people waste their time.
Another thing that bothers me is the sheer number of petitions, many of them on the same subject. (The smoking ban, for example.) What is the point? If you are going to sign a petition, at least sign one that's clear and concise. For example:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to amend the smoking ban to allow a limited number of smoking licenses to be obtained by owners of pubs, restaurants and clubs from their local council.
As I write that petition has 2,497 signatures. No-one in government will look at it until it has hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of signatures, and even they will probably ignore it, but if you want to sign a serious smoking-related petition that's the one I'd choose. Click HERE.
On the other hand, if you fancy being a little more subversive, you could sign THIS petition. It currently has just 35 "supporters" but they include the wonderfully named 'I LOVE BEING AN EXTREMIST ASSHOLE TOO'. (Well, it made me laugh.) It would be even funnier if we could get several hundred people to sign it using equally inventive names.
Over to you.
Reader Comments (9)
Simon, I know what you mean about the Government, taking absolutely no notice of the petitions on their website.
However, I disagree with you in your ideas that because that is presumably the case, that we should not bother with petitions. In fact you backtrack on your thoughts, by then telling us, that if we did want to back any petitions on the Government site, that these are the ones we should sign, and you give links for certain petitions, one of them even being so silly, that you are encouraging people to waste their time.
As you know, I have a petition currently ongoing on the UK Gov site, which asks our Government to force the tobacco companies to ban all toxic substances from tobacco products. I did ask you to place a link for this petition on your site but you declined, saying that you were against all such petitions.
My petition is the only one, which could force the Government to overturn their smoking ban, by making second hand smoking completely harmless.
If anyone else, wishes to sign my petition, rather than just playing with the silly ones mentioned, they can do so by clicking here http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/toxinsintobacco/#detail
Actually, of all the smoking petitions on that website, the ONLY one worth signing, is Peter's.
Tobacco companies had the ability, the technology, the research, and the will to remove these unsafe toxins decades ago. I happen to know that a 370 page manual exists. Removing 50% the toxins will reduce tobacco related illnesses by 90%.
Then there would be no need for silly permits, no need for silly bans, and no need for silly anti-smokers movements. Oh, and no need for silly patches either.Of course, tobacco tax can be all but removed as well.
The only people that get hurt (financially) are the drug companies.
In fact, if they truly cared about our well-being, they (the anti-smokers) would sign Peter's petition in a heartbeat. And so would every MP in the UK.
Hi Colin and Peter, I thought the problem with cigarettes is the tar produced in the burning of the tobacco. It then enters the body and settles on the lungs and arteries. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Hello Dave,
Here are a couple of articles explaining about tar in cigarettes.
No 1. Abstract of GB1028077 1,028,077. Treating tobacco. IMPERIAL TOBACCO CO. (Of Great Britain and Ireland) Ltd. March 30th, 1965 [April 17, 1964], No. 16110/64. Heading A2C. The production of tar in the smoke from burning tobacco is reduced without reducing the nicotine content by treating the tobacco with potassium carbonate. The potassium carbonate may be applied to the tobacco before or after shredding either as a solution or as a powder. Preferably from 1-10% by weight of potassium carbonate is applied.
You can view article here: Http://www.wikipatents.com/gb/1028077.html
No 2. Tar is the common name for the resinous partially combusted particulate matter produced by the burning of tobacco, cannabis, and other plant material in the act of smoking. Tar is purportedly the most destructive component in habitual tobacco smoking, accumulating in the smoker's lungs over time and damaging them through various biochemical and mechanical processes.
Tar includes the majority of mutagenic and carcinogenic agents in tobacco smoke (IARC, 1986). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), for example, are genotoxic via epoxidation.
There is a common misconception that the tar in cigarettes is equivalent to the tar used on roads. As a result of this, cigarette companies in the United States, when prompted to give tar/nicotine ratings for cigarettes, usually use "tar", in quotation marks, to indicate that it is not the road surface component. Tar is occasionally referred to as an acronym for total aerosol residue[1] although it's possible this is a backronym.
The European Union currently limits the tar yield of cigarettes to 10mg.[2]
You can view article here: Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_(tobacco_residue)
Notice at the end of the second article, it states that the European Union currently limits the tar yield of cigarettes to 10 mg. If they can do that, why haven't they banned the tar yield in cigarettes completely?
Possibly 30 years ago some research was reported which said that hand rolled cigarettes burned at a lower temperature than the ready-made kind and that, because of this, fewer harmful substances were released. I've no memory of the source or the quality of the research but I do recall that some people who habitually rolled their own said that shop-bought cigarettes made them cough. It would be interesting to know whether any other research has been conducted among people who habitually roll their own as to whether they tend to have healthy breathing. I doubt that anyone would fund such research.
On other health issues the effectiveness of placebos is recognised. What about the opposite? If we were told, with a relentless mixture of insidious and bullying nagging which destroyed the peace of mind of the consumer, that carrots caused cancer, sooner or later that campaign could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Peace of mind and tobacco went together. Think of the archetype of the old man with pipe, slippers and book. Think of those very old men in public life of whom we have known, who have smoked.But peace of mind has been systematically and, I fear, consciously undermined, by the anti-tobacco fanatics, and substituted, through a kind of brainwashing, by anxiety, guilt fear, discomfort and induced self-loathing. As I said, even carrots would not survive this treatment. And punitive and contemptuous advertisements can disrupt, even sabotage, delicate family harmony when shown on television.
Worse is the spiteful cynicism with which this process has been developed over a generation and more. Truth, which many of us care about more than tobacco, has been treated with contempt. Watch out, these people are on a roll. I noticed today that Julian le Grand (of the tobacco permits) has been reported as recommending separate outlets for alcohol sales. Perhaps we should watch out for the quiet repeal at some point of the laws which allow home brewing and wine making and the growing of tobacco for personal use. The latter came in after the war, the former in more recent years.
As for the media there has been a process over the past 20 years of perhaps, breeding smokers out of the system. I remember reports that the BBC had banned smoking in all its offices virtually a generation ago. Perhaps it's not so much about smoking as about conforming. It's getting to the point where disapproval of tobacco is a ticket of membership to the political, administrative and bureaucratic classes.
And therein lies the biggest threat. I thought a generation ago that the lessons would not be forgotten if the anti-smoking agenda was successful. They could be used in other processes to impose social control. Always, it seems, in history, there is a craving to dominate others.Religion and politics have had their turn in their time (and in that process abusing their own raisons d'etre). This time it's health. I fear that our politicians are asleep or too cautious by half.
A few months ago I posted a number of messages over the name 'Norman' which I do now. Then someone else posted over the same name with a message very contrary to mine. I write again, with a warning that if there is any other post from someone of the same name as mine expressing a supportive view of the smoking ban, it is not from me.
It seems that there are some confusing threads being followed here.
The primary smoking statistics are based on mainly elderly people, dying of common 'age related' disease. The fact that they happen to be smokers puts them on the list, and there you have the millions of fatalities given out by the propaganda, as premature deaths, regardless of age.
Many of the highest smoking countries have the highest longevity rates, and diseae has been rising in countries where bans have reduced smoking etc.etc.etc.
Now we have talk of a campaign to reduce the toxins in tobacco, and in that, admitting that it is a most dangerous of products, just what the Antis want to hear.
It may well become potentially safer for some, if less toxins existed, although minute most are,but IF this wasn't implemented, which is the likely outcome, this description of tobacco by the very people fighting the bans, is playing directly into the hands of the Healthists.
Is this dong the work for ASH? I think it may be. Gong down this road could be a big mistake.
Norman
I smoke hand-rolled tobacco ciggies all week and I don't tend to cough. I smoke shop-bought ones at the week-end when I go out and I cough like anything. Looks like there might be something in it and worth yet another study! I always put the cough down to the booze though as I only drink then, yet I smoke all week.
Perhaps I'm not normal! (or even worse, a freak and a murderer to all the antis).
Hate the ban, hate the thought of a license and would get out of this country if I could at the first opportunity. Let's leave the country to the antis and the PC brigade and start a new UK somewhere else. A proper UK, with UK values - a tolerant, democtratic society
I agree with you Norman, regarding the effect of mind over matter. I believe the work and research done by the American Doctor (Oncologist, I think) who wrote 'Love, Medicine and Miracles' resulted in many of his approaches to Cancer being adopted in other countries. A number of which involved using the mind to destroy the bad cells through creative visualisation.
For me there is no question that this constant battering to our psyches through warnings is harmful. Particularly nasty, I thought, was a recent article where the antis wanted to put warnings on Rizla packets because they felt that once the tobacco pack was opened, the user wouldn't necessarily see the warning again. So this insistent, repetitive, almost subliminal hammering home of a message is quite intentional, and presumes us all to be so completely stupid that we will read something once and then forget it entirely.
Personally, I put labels over the warnings as soon as I get my stock in. I prefer not to become a victim of mind control or mentally- induced illness. Wouldn't give the fascists the satisfaction.
Zitori, I have reservations about giving the appearance of giving an inch to the anti's also. We all know what they do when you give them an inch.
You cannot give an inch to these people. I would have thought that was pretty obvious by now.
However well intentioned talk of campaigning for less toxins in tobacco is,the Antis won't give a damn one way or another. It is still smoking and that's enough to require bans. Anything that is lit produces toxins which are unacceptable in their minds, and that would be the Governments veiw also.
This gives even more creedance to the dangers of ETS, and is akin to saying 'smoking is bad but......'