Cameron: the way forward
Friday, May 23, 2008 In response to the Crewe and Nantwich by-election result, I have just received the following email:
"Once again the clearest expression of revulsion from this authoritarian and interfering government. But not a word in the media about the things that have really infuriated many - the ban that prevents us having a cigarette with our pint, even in a PRIVATE club. And the prospect of ever nastier action against people who just want a pint even without a smoke."
I couldn't have put it better myself. The problem is, the Conservatives don't get it either. Driving home from London today I listened to David Cameron call for an end to "bossy, interfering government".
For some reason, he and his colleagues don't seem to understand that, for many people, the smoking ban (or, at least, the savage extent of the ban) is symbolic of the worst excesses of "bossy, interfering government".
Ultimately it comes down to argument and persuasion. Between now and the next general election, we have to convince the Conservatives that the smoking ban is still an issue for many people and there are more votes to be gained than lost with a promise to amend or, at the very least, review the legislation.
For the moment, I suspect they think the benefits of revisiting the issue are outweighed by the disadvantages. Cameron, after all, wants to be perceived as forward not "backward-looking" (a term he used to described Labour today).
Amending the ban will be seen, in some people's eyes, as "reversing" the ban (ie "backward-looking"). Our job is to persuade Cameron and his team that amendments to the ban (well-ventilated, licensed smoking rooms, for example) offer a liberal, non-bossy way forward from the mess Labour has got us into.
Reader Comments (46)
Trouble is Cameron, like Blair, will say in his manifesto what he thinks the people will want to hear in order to get voted in, but once in situ he, like many others before him, are just as likely as Blair to renege on the promises made in order to get elected.
Unfortunately I do not trust any of the 3 major parties and would prefer to try and give someone else a chance, just to see if they can and will do any better. Obviously things may change between now and an election, but at the moment my vote would be with a party such as UKIP.
I suspect politicians all live in the World According To ASH, in which more or less everybody wanted the smoking ban, which has been a great success, with millions of non-smokers having flocked to replace the vanished smokers, who anyway all said, "It's a fair cop, guv.Thank you for making me stop smoking." In this version of reality, most pub-goers would now like to see alcohol banned as well.
This has happened because ASH can lobby MPs intensely, provide them with health 'facts' and show them 'opinion polls' that no one contests. So MPs believe them. And when they see the Crewe and Nantwich results, they dismiss any thought that it might have been a consequence of the smoking ban (which in part it almost certainly was) because they know that everyone wanted the ban, and that it's been a great success. They have all been so thoroughly brain-washed that they can't imagine anything else.
Democracy, at least in the sense of politicians listening to the electorate, has broken down. Politicians now listen to powerful pressure groups. When Gordon said he'd listen, he probably meant it. But he'll be listening to his ASH minder who'll be telling him that Crewe and Nantwich had nothing to do with the smoking ban, because everybody knows that this is one of the few popular things this government has done. "Don't worry," the minder will coo. "The voters love bans. You should ban alcohol in pubs next. That will win you the next election. Honest."
There are some 12 million smokers and some 600 MPs. If only every smoker would write just one letter to their MP...20,000 letters per MP! Wouldn't they get the message? Now is a golden opportunity, with New Labour on its knees and public opinion shifting slightly in sympathy towards the now blatant hounding of smokers and the bullying of drinkers about to step up a gear. Smokers have no-one to blame but themselves if things get worse - which they will if they're too bloody apathetic to do anything.
The Tories might be considered forward looking, joined-up thinkers if they were to re-introduce decent standards of education to prepare people to think for themselves and to take personal responsibility (or would that be a backward step because it's been done before?). Ally that to an acceptance that, in a free society, rational, autonomous adults have the right, and should be allowed , to make decisions that others consider foolish. Further, recognise that is abhorrent to cynically extort huge amounts of revenue from people while spearheading a campaign of vilification of them and that it is the mark of a government with absolutely no moral integrity which deserves nothing but the contempt of the electorate. Rather, take an enlightened view and accommodate smokers, outcast from decent society by nasty Labour, by introducing high quality air technology that not only deals with ETS but the rather unpleasant odours that have permeated 'enclosed public spaces' since smokers were banished. Now that's something that hasn't been done before!
The Labour Government has introduced over 3,000 new criminal laws since 1997. Ordinary people have been given hefty fines and criminal records for making minor mistakes and yet we still get murders almost on a daily basis.
The smoking ban has already caused more deaths than passive smoking ever will.
As a former Tory voter I wish I could feel anything but lukewarm about the current run of successes for the party but I can't. I've been turned into a social pariah simply because I choose to smoke and the Tories don't care. In fact, they value the rights of the hunting fraternity to aid and abet the torture of living animals above restoring my rights to be a valued member of society. People voted for them in desperation, for the perceived lesser of three evils, not because they stand for truth, decency and democracy, but just because they appear to be slightly less awful than the other two parties, and that's nothing to celebrate.
Lyn, hello again. John Reid, even after his move to the Ministry of Defence, was bringing in Private Members Bills, saying that the government should not go back on manifesto committments (exemption of private clubs and non food pubs). It seems however, that the rules have changed, and ASH and co won - (well, Patricia Hewitt was a soft touch, see my article on the Freeedon2Choose Front Page). As for the general state of play. Very frustrating. We have a totally fragmented political system. 'First past the post' is bad enough, but now Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales can all pass their own legislation and still vote on British legislation, you know, to include the ones who started it all, England. Even if all smokers, or all drinkers, or all sausage eaters decided not to vote, you still have either Tory or Labour. There is nothing we can do, well there is, it is so simple really...rememember the poll tax civil disobedience?
We must look forward with a positive theme, have our own statement, or war cry if you like. As far as I see the government lied about the smoke ban from the start it was never put forward as a blanket ban so the law was built on a lie. We could sign any post with a short Protest as well as a name, that way even on other debates we would be visible. It would need to be short and catchey, What do you think?
I just wanted to give this signature as an example. Do you think it would be printed in news or blogs?
Mary, it might be better to sign off:
Mary voter, smoker not pariah!
It pushes the point a bit further
Thanks Hellen, I know it's not a big step but if enough people would do it on blogs, BBC included it might keep us in public view.
I have never been an avid church goer, however I attended Sunday school as a child and in later life have attended myriad weddings, funerals, christenings, etc & in all that time I have never witnessed anyone smoking in church. So it gives me great amusement to see No Smoking signs on all the the church doors in our sleepy town of Clacton on Sea - how pathetic! If the Tories win power in 2010, don't think for one minute that they will review the Smoking Ban, they will just shrug their sholders and say 'sorry boss it wasn't our decision' - to do anything else would be political suicide.
I personally think that the Labour Party is ours bet hope in doing something about amending the smoking ban. There must be lots of Labour MPs worried about losing their seats at the next election.Overturning a 7,000 majority in a staunch Labour seat must have may of them mortified about being on the dole come 2010. I will be in contact with my local MP Harry Cohen a vehement anti too at his surgery and see what I can get.
Having signage in churches. A non smoking friend of mine in Australia said it would be like having signs on a girls school saying 'no raping, pilaging or white slavery'
Cameron: high on ambition, low on principle. Read the man. He gives away so much about himself and if you look, none of his spin covers him and presents him as he would like to come across, which is, as: earnest, sincere, plucky, and as Simon rightly put it, forward-looking. (Liked your assessment here, Simon, and consider it well put.)
The actual impression that he (Cameron) makes on many people is that of being: insincere, dishonest, conceited, not so bright and, lacking in what used to be called "moral fibre". Add to that, and no, I am not a class warrior, Cameron thinks he was bred to rule.
On Pro-Choice Smoking Doctor, I confidently predicted last November that Gordon was finished. No, this was not because of supernatural powers but just an ability to take account of a long list of empirical facts.
My prediction on Cameron is not so firmly empirically based but based on a psychological assessment. Uncle Blad's prediction on this political denizen is that give him three years and the public will be sick to death of him. Oh, and I really would like to be pleasantly surprised to the contrary and proved wrong.
We still have grim times ahead.
Let us assume for a moment that Cameron IS just the same old cynical greasy-pole-climber than many suggest he is, and that his SOLE concern about reversing/retaining the Ban is the perceived electotoral advantage/disadvantage that flows from it.
Very well: does anyone SERIOUSLY believe that there exists a number of militant Tobacco Nazis sufficient to overturn the result of a general election ? If so, then we are clearly ALL wasting our time even discussing the matter.
To put it another way: how could Cameron POSSIBLY injure his chances of election by standing as what in another (much more controversial context, I'd have thought) would be known as The Pro-Choice Candidate ?
I'm not sure how 'bright' or not Cameron is: but he'd have to be REALLY stupid not to see some sense in offering the electorate the 'choice' between someone who believes we should once again be treated as Responsible Adults capable of making our own decisions (thank you very much), and Naughty Schoolchildren who need to be badgered towards salvation..........
Reversing the Ban could (if you'll forgive me) be JUST the Breath Of Fresh Air a substantial portion of the public so earnestly craves.
And - once elected - he could (genuinely) plead 'Democracy' to shut up once and for all the little Liam Donaldsons and Deborah Arnotts of this world.
Common sense, really....................
Dear God -
Why do I bother ?
I've just received the following rather belated e-mail from Caroline Spelman, the Chairman of the Conservative Party (now PAY ATTENTION, you lot at the back !!):
"Thank you very much for your email dated 31st March about the ban on smoking. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. I read the points the article and the points that you made with great interest.
Whatever one’s own views, it is very clear that public opinion has demanded a ban on smoking in public places for some time. There is also a considerable body of scientific evidence to point to the harmful health effects of second-hand smoke.
At the time of the debate on the ban, Conservatives expressed some reservations about it, for example about smoking in prisons and mental health units, and about the requirement on all public places and businesses to display no smoking signs. The Government Minister previously responsible for the smoking ban, Caroline Flint, has assured us that the Government are committed to a review of the legislation, so if any problems occur which were not expected while the legislation was being formulated, the legislation may be reconsidered.
I hope that these measures will play a positive role in reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and, in turn, help to improve public health.
You may also be interested to know about the Government’s proposals to ban cigarette vending machines and stop shops from displaying tobacco products.
I can well understand your unhappiness with this; it has certainly prompted many to feel that this would be a move towards a ‘nanny state’. This is something that, as a Conservative, I would instinctively be against.
The Government has said that it feels it is vital to get across the message to children that smoking is bad. If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, they are willing to do that. They have also argued that similar laws are already in operation in Ontario, in Canada and two Australian states.
I agree that, given the obvious health damage of smoking, we must try to support people who want to give up smoking. This is particularly true in deprived areas, where larger numbers of people smoke and where life expectancies can be up to ten years shorter.
Therefore, I think it is worth looking at this suggestion. As David Cameron, a former smoker who struggled with giving up, has said, it might help to take away some of the temptation.
However, I have yet not been convinced that banning the display of a legal product will have the desired effect of reducing smoking, since I do not think that cigarettes are an ‘impulse buy’.
It is clear that, should this idea get the go ahead, there will be all sorts of problems in terms of the layout of shops. That is why it is right to have a consultation before making a decision. Just as I did when I voted on the smoking ban, I will carefully look at the details of what is being proposed, before deciding whether I will support it or not.
Whatever happens, no one is suggesting that cigarettes should be banned and people will always be free to smoke if they wish.
Your email will help me inform my view, so thank you again for taking the time to write.
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Spelman MP
Caroline Spelman, MP for Meriden"
Anyone have a machine gun for sale ?
Time to print off another copy of Joe Jackson's brilliant essay - and post it to the lady, I think. Cheaper than bullets, anyway..................
Joyce -
I should have said it earlier: thanks for a typically intelligent post.
As to your suggestion about:
"high quality air technology that not only deals with ETS but the rather unpleasant odours that have permeated 'enclosed public spaces' since smokers were banished."
Well, I naturally mentioned this to the patrician lady I spoke to some time ago at Central Office ("Smoking's VERY bad for you, you know...........etc etc"), and HER response was simplicity itself:
"IT'S BEEN TRIED, AND IT DOESN'T WORK".
How can one POSSIBLY dispute with such obviously well-informed Scientific Geniuses ? You see, while it IS of course possible to use modern technology to remove (eg) toxic fumes from tanks containing Cadmium etc, it is apparently NOT possible to do so with REALLY harmful substances such as tobacco smoke (carbon monoxide, nicotine, strontium 90, Kryptonite, enriched uranium and so on..........) - as any sensible person knows.
Or - to put it another way - Dumb and Dumber !
What chance do we stand against such religiously-held convictions ?
Oh , and by the way (speaking of 'religion'): if anyone believes that the nutters who constitute what is known in the press as the 'The Religious Right' are confined to political life Across The Pond, they should do some research into the growing number of such people within the Conservative Party (I name no names): take it from me, ANY form of rational debate with such people is an Exercise In Futility (and no - I'm not 'anti-Christian' - just anti-fanatic).
And, naturally, I'm NOT suggesting for one minute that (for example) the Chariman of the Conservative Party...................
Now gormless gordon brown has gone on utube to listen to people's views perhaps people who smoke would vent their anger and objections to the smoking ban to him direct.And as for cameron he is just as bad as gormless gordon i wrote to him about the smoking ban and never got a reply. He is a selfish hypocrital moron and expects us all to give up the fags like he has done. And it aint going to happen. They make me sick the lot of them they dont mind taking the revenue from smokers and then treat us like leppers. They are all as bad as one another. Cameron is on a high he thinks people have turned to voting tory, truth is people have no other alternative to vote for. Its not tory's winning its labour losing. They have created a nanny state and now they are seeing the results of the bad policies and unpopular bans they have imposed. I love it when i see them losing and cameron will find out that the british people will not tolerate a nanny state.
I pay my taxes i am a law abiding citizen yet because i choose to smoke i am treated like a lepper something like what they would bring in on the end of their shoe.
I would go on utube if i knew how and tell gormless gordon the reason he is losing so badly its because of the state of this country and also the smoking ban. So please anyone who knows how to go on utube tell gormless gordon the smoking ban needs adjusting.
Personally I am pleased with the ban on smoking in public place and I hope the next government maintains it.
I am an ex-smoker who still supports the rights of smokers but I do not agree those 'rights' include the right to pollute public spaces.
Once you have given up I think you will appreciate just pleasant smoke free environments are.
Martin, thank you for your very kind comment.
The response that you received from Caroline Spelman, from what I can gather, is typical of politicians who have swallowed ASH's propaganda. The only way that I can see to deal with them is to keep responding using information available to counter each claim as it arises. FOREST has produced the excellent "Prejudice and Propaganda" as well as the essays written by Joe Jackson and its late Chairman; Forces has a wealth of material on the science and post-ban consequences and F2C appear to be doing sterling work with publicans and UKIP. Politicians need to know that there is a very good case for amending the ban. Before any case can be built, however, the lies that underpin the ban have to be exposed and demolished because no amount of banging on about the nanny state and erosion of civil liberties can counter the argument in favour of safeguarding non-smokers' health. I think that we now have to realise, too, that, having dealt with SHS and exhausted the tactic of passive smoking, the Antis have now turned their attention overtly to active smoking and will use The Children to justify new proposals to further denormalise smoking. Interestingly, the reply that I received from my (Labour) MP, Dari Taylor, made little mention of SHS as the defining issue of the ban:
"The reason for the smoking ban is the level of cases that the NHS deal with that are a direct consequence of smoking."
She goes on to say,
"It is the tax payer who foots the bill for all NHS treatment...As the population ages and lives longer, the working population is shrinking, this is due to couples having smaller families. [Presumably she pointed this out in case I thought that it might be due to an ever-increasing unemployed population!]
"A small working population is going to find it increasingly difficult to pay for a large retired population that needs a great deal of health care. In order to help ease the pressure on future generations it was decided in the manifesto 2005 that a blanket ban on smoking in public enclosed places should be established."
If we can show that the dangers of SHS are mythical and that active smoking doesn't dent the coffers then politicians might be prepared to listen to calls for some form of amendment.
I say "might" because they certainly won't if there are just a few voices being raised. They would have to know that sufficient numbers of smokers feel strongly about the issue that it will affect their voting behaviour. This could be used to galvanise Labour now that it's clutching at straws to stay in power so that there could be a real fight at the next election.
Given the problems of mobilising smokers as a group, the only way that I can think of to raise awareness among politicians is if smokers write to their MPs and keep countering each of their reasons for supporting a ban.
Norman,
Perhaps you missed the bit that acknowledges that smokers have no wish to pollute the atmosphere enjoyed by non-smokers. Among the wonders of the 21st century is air technology that can cope with the smoke produced by a cigarette, pipe or cigar so that there is no reason at all for anyone to have to sit enveloped in a fug.
Martin V wrote: To put it another way: how could Cameron POSSIBLY injure his chances of election by standing as what in another (much more controversial context, I'd have thought) would be known as The Pro-Choice Candidate ?
Could it be that Cameron won't dare to propose relaxing the smoking ban because Gordon would promptly steal the policy - like he stole their inheritance tax initiative?
As long as smokers are suffering, they'll vote against Labour, and the Conservatives are the likely winners of those protest votes. And this suits Cameron fine.
At the moment it look like Gordon and the Labour party believe their own (or rather ASH's) spin, and think that the ban is very popular and a great success. Media silence on the issue tends to confirm - or at least not contradict - this perception. The result is that Labour has been and continues to be shooting itself in its own foot. It only goes to show how out of touch they are with smokers. Regardless of what Cameron does or does not believe, it suits him fine to go along with the anti-smoking consensus, and keep Gordon thinking the ban isn't an electoral liability. If Gordon was to suddenly wake up and relax the ban, he'd win back a great many of his lost ex-Labour smokers, which would be a disaster for Cameron.
Joyce - I fail to see the point of trying to convince your MP that there is no harm in SHS, when she sees the smoking ban as primarily a way of stopping people from smoking, and burdening the NHS and working taxpayers with smoking-related diseases.
You might instead point out that smokers are taxpayers too - most of the price of a packet of cigarettes is tax -, and that they put in something like 5 times in taxes what they take out. You might add that since smokers are said to die younger, they reduce their burden on the NHS, and that it is actually long-lived healthy people who impose the greatest burden over their longer lifespan. If anything, she really ought to encourage more people to smoke.
And since your Labour MP clearly wants to regulate/control what people do that might harm them, you might suggest to her that she also ban all sports (lots of cuts, broken legs, and torn muscles gumming up the NHS), all cycling (same thing), all swimming and boating (danger of drowning), all visits to foreign countries (danger of contracting awful tropical diseases). Really? Why stop with smokers? The country is chock full of people needlessly injuring themselves. I'm surprised a totalitarian like her isn't already champing at the bit to regulate/ban sports, cycling, etc.
More generally, they keep moving the goal posts. If it gets proved that SHS poses no threat, they just say "Well, that wasn't the real point of the ban anyway. It was to stop people smoking." Perhaps we'll have to show that bans don't stop people from smoking. The incidence of smoking in Ireland has gone up since their ban.
Personally, I still think that voters need to turn their backs totally on all 3 main parties and look elsewhere - UKIP for example. By the way, I am not a member of UKIP I just want a totally fresh new stance on politics and would hope that they would, at least, start by being squeaky clean, transparent and above board, which would be a remarkably refreshing change and something for the other parties to take a back seat and consider, if they wish to gain the trust of the people again!
" - More generally, they keep moving the goal posts. If it gets proved that SHS poses no threat, they just say "Well, that wasn't the real point of the ban anyway. It was to stop people smoking." - "
And if they ever get shown that smoking bans don't reduce smoking. they'll think of some other reason to ban it. These b*st*rds start from the position of wanting to ban smoking, and then go looking around for some faintly plausible reason for doing so.
By the same mentality, if most people in the country were to become vegetarians, they'd go and ban meat in all restaurants. They'd probably say that cooked meat "stinks". They'd come up with research that showed that meat products carried health risks that vegetarian food didn't. They'd say that meat-eating was a bad example to children. They'd say that rearing livestock was an inefficient way to produce protein. Any excuse will do.
This is really all about the majority imposing its preferences on the minority, just because it can. Everybody must learn to like what they like. They will learn to appreciate just how pleasant it is.
As A smoker with my Husband, We have just come back from a Fun day out with our two dogs, and there were loads of people all smoking, as we all have to outside, but its utter madness as i really think that these pubs are loosing out big time.Whats wrong with Good Ventilation???In seperate rooms? Has anyone brought a supersmoker? This is a ciggie which is allowed by law!! But I cant somehow see it really being allowed !!! This is a Pathetic bossy, nanny state and at times I am utterly disgusted at the way this wretched Government say what we can and cant do.Regards amandah
Have you been reading the greenies' manifesto, Frank?!!
Idlex, yes, wrt my MP that's the way to go. I didn't write to her with the intention of trying to prove that SHS is harmless but to say that, in view of Labour's breach of its manifesto promise, its authoritarianism (especially after only cursory acceptance of ASH's spin) and its shameful vilification of smokers, I wouldn't be voting for the Labour Party candidate in the local elections and that my behaviour at the general election would depend on evidence of HMG's attitude between now and then. I can't figure out, though, whether she just doesn't know whether she's batting or bowling (she seems blissfully unaware, for example, that the manifesto promised exemptions) or whether Labour has now given up the pretence that the ban was ever about SHS. If it's the former, it might explain why she's a backbancher and if the latter, it's another stick to hit them with.
Thank you Martin V for the description of your interaction with Caroline Spelman. There is only one thing I can say in response to her asinine remarks: Fool!
With regard to the comments by Norman:
"Once you have given up I think you will appreciate just pleasant smoke free environments are."
Norman, the price of all these smokefree environments and the pleasantness it affords you is disproportionate. Has it occurred to you how many people are going out of business to meet your needs? Has it?
Well, if not, then why not ask yourself why those who have gone out of business because of smoking bans and those who will in the future, could not remain in business to serve the needs of smokers. Why does the entire world have to revolve around serving your needs?
As for talk about polluting the atmosphere, don't talk so much nonsense man. The atmosphere is well polluted and will remain so in spades in many locations and as a result of nothing to do with people smoking.
When John Reid was still Heath Secretary, he said in an interview that the proposed smoking ban (which still included exemptions at that time) was not really about passive smoking, it was to reduce the number of smokers to 21% by 2010.
"The Labour Party Manifesto 2005" (pg 66) [helpfully highlighted by my MP]:
"We recognise that many people want smoke-free environments and need regulation to help them get this. We therefore intend to shift the balance significantly in their favour. We will legislate to ensure that all enclosed public places and workplaces other than licensed premises will be smoke-free. The legislation will ensure that all restaurants will be smoke-free, all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free, and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. However, whatever the general status, to protect employees, smoking in the bar area will be prohibited everywhere.
These restrictions will be accompanied by an expansion of NHS smoking cessation services to encourage and support smokers to improve their own health by giving up smoking.
Starting with the poorest areas of the country we will introduce health trainers to help people maintain their healthy choices. By 2010, through this activity we plan to reduce the health inequalities that exist between rich and poor."
Joyce (et al) -
Well, at least you were fortunate enough to receive a reply from your MP (as opposed to the standard 'Thank you for your comments' put-down).
She does seem a little confused, of course - but then, don't they all, the poor dears ?
As Frank points out above - with impeccable logic - either she wants everyone to live to a Ripe Old Age (thus placing an even heavier burden on the working population), or she wants people to start dying younger (thus lightening said burden). So much for the Economic argument ! She can't have it both ways - although that won't stop her trying. I assume she's not quite advanced enough to have yet come across the concept of Squaring The Circle ?
Of course, the mistake WE all make is this: that the Antis have a RATIONAL (if misguided) reason for holding to their position. All we Reasoning People have to do, therefore, is unpick the 'logic' of their argument, and they will instantly realise the error of their ways - and repent.
The point is, however, that such people have NOT arrived at their position by way of a rational consideration of ALL the FACTS, but thankfully grasp at ANY pretext to stop something for which they feel a personal DISTASTE. Which of us has not at some time been harangued by some (often neurotic) bore for indulging our 'filthy habit' ? Why 'filthy' EXACTLY ? I can certainly think of one activity - illegal not so long ago - which many find rather more disgusting, but which now receives tacit approval from all three parties.
The philosophical subtext behind all the anti-smoking sophistry is exquisite in its selfish simplicity:
I DON'T LIKE it - therefore you should STOP !!
At bottom, I fear that the REAL 'position' of the Antis is simply that of the truculent child who rebuffs all entreaties to sensible behaviour with an abrupt "Shan't - and you can't MAKE me !!"
The irony, of course, is that the Antis think that THEY are the Grown-Ups, and we the Children.
I rather suspect - though have absolutely no means of proving it - that They also include a substantial proportion of the alleged one-in-three of the population STILL clinging tenaciously to the conviction that Princess Diana was murdered (she MUST have been).
And people STILL wonder how the (ususally so intelligent) Germans could possibly have fallen for Nazism !
Thing is, Martin, that no-one likes to lose face - especially politicians who want the electorate to see them as cleverer and more capable than the lesser mortals who aren't in parliament. Let's say that the politicians have been duped by ASH. I'm sure that they didn't look too closely at the evidence partly because they wanted to believe the lies that zillions of £s would be saved from not treating smokers and all those non-smokers endangered by SHS. Even if 80% of the population took to the streets in protest at the ban, politicians would still need to find ways to save face to avoid being rumbled as the gullible puppets of ASH We need to provide those face-savers.
Joyce -
Sadly, you're probably right !
But it makes me even more livid to consider that a simple (but Life-enhancing) freedom which I've enjoyed for decades should now be abandoned - merely to save some dimwit little politician's 'face'.
Time for a quotation from my good friend Mr Chesterton, methinks:
"Men are ruled, at this minute by the clock, by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern."
And THAT was written in 1917 !
The greatest irony about smoking bans and all the attendant rubbish is that they don't bring smoking rates down but put them up.
For example, both F2C and Forces have drawn attention to this matter on countless occasions and supported it with real hard evidence, part of which includes the increase in value of tobacco shares and the fact the profits of all the tobacco companies are up.
On top of that, you have the massive increase in black market cigarettes. This market will continue to expand as customers forgo the shops to avoid paying the ridiculous price on tobacco and seek to obtain it elsewhere. Then, of course, you have the increase in the purchase of legitimate duty free items which my own house is now stuffed to the rafters with.
To some there it is still a mystery why the tobacco companies refuse to defend themselves more robustly. But, why should they? After all, their sales are up and their shareholders happy. So, Big Tobacco wins and Big Pharma also wins because the latter sell their smoking cessation rubbish, although Champix is now taking some serious hits as certain professional bodies refuse to permit their employees to use it because of the risks involved. See for instance:
"Smoking Cessation Drug Banned by FAA for Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers; Same Drug Promoted by Big Pharma-Supported Expert Panel"
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
On top of that, the parasites like ASH and all the other anti smoking bodies continue to rake in grants funded by tax payers' money. So, all these people are making lots of dosh, as do governments through taxes. Yipppeee, they all maka da money and no surprise then why, when people have demanded a complete ban on tobacco sales, many of the first objectors have been the antis.
Smoking bans are the product of scum exploitative minds who use those witless and gullible well intentioned but badly informed members of the public to act as their footsoldiers and cannon fodder.
Who looses? Well, smokers, publicans, some cafe and restaurants, bingo halls, tobacconists, grocers, cigarette machine vendors, bingo halls, clubs and hosts of other people with connected occupations. Oh well, so what? This just represents a transfer of wealth from one section (or sections) of society to another or others.
Somebody spoke about smokescreens on one of these threads, well there's the basis for a smokescreen, it's a money making racket. Pity that Cameron and his poodles have chosen to uphold this racket, for as someone else said, he shows a fundamental lack of principle. I shall certainly not be voting for any of the three main political tossers...er..sorry.. parties, as they all seem in some way or another, either wittingly or unwittingly, to have their noses in the same feeding trough.
We have to remember that these laws are based on information from smoke haters, and passed by non smokers and ex smokers who have that smug 'if I can do it anyone can' mentality. Funnily enough, I was thinking only today, about when I used to teach. (Maybe I wouldn't have got over stressed if they hadn't banned smoking on school premises in 1993!!). I used to tell the kids that nicotine was more addictive than heroin. Did I really believe that? I wonder where that information came from? (Go on, guess). Nicotine is not a mind altering drug. It might aid my concentration, and help me to cope with the other dangers I face every day, but if I couldn't have it, I don't think I would lose reason and kill or maim anyone to get some!!!
Excellent articles, as usual, Blad and Timbone.
When questioning why Big T don't make much fuss about the ban, don't forget that Big Pharma are excellent customers.themselves. Look at the labels on their mind altering and many other drugs. All have nicotine as their base. They call it other things, ie Niacin, Nicotinic Acid, Vitamen B3 and many other official sounding names. It is, however, just plain old nicotine. Cigarettes are safer as the body absorbs as much as it needs from this beneficial healing substance and we blow the rest out in smoke. Nicotine taken internally in tablet form or by patches, etc., cannot be controlled so easily and naturally.
Regarding our big three party leaders, it is doubtful now that they have any say at all in their policy making. All evidence points towards them, and their media, being controlled directly by the E.U. I expect they have been assured that their own financial future is secure.
Mind you, if they believe that, they will believe anything. Well they do, don't they? They believe that smoking kills.
As usual I find the posted articles of great interest, but as usual I see no sight of any changes of views from the big Three, and yes it is fact that we are governed by the EU on this matter, despite how voters feel. I often quote to people, that if smoking, is that bad, why doesn't one of the big three have the bottle to propose an outright ban ALL cigarette sales? could it be something to do with the outrageous tax received? Is there anybody out there that now trust politicians? I think not, the latest lie I have heard came from Boris Johnson, many people I know, voted for him, because he told the Sun that he would allow pubs in the Capital to decide on the smoking ban. He actually said If he had it his way he would allow the pubs and private clubs a choice and would even consider a referendum, I was unaware that the Mayor of London could overule any Government legislation or the feelings of his own party, and he did say IF, which he can dismiss at a later date, and I have no doubt he will. Like all Politicians, they do not live in the real world. Roger Foulser
Yes, the EU certainly controls a great deal and continues, by stealth, to impose its governmental structures upon us. The concept of regional assemblies, for example, is one that is quintessentially alien to us and a continental entity.
Moreover, there are fundamental differences between Roman based law and Anglo-Saxon or English, in that, in Roman based law nothing is permitted except those things which are exempted. This is opposite to English law where everything is permitted except those things which are forbidden. Notice please this trend where the implementation of smoking bans are concerned: smoking is forbidden in all public places except those places in which there maybe exemptions.
Moreover, on the prohibition front, if you think things are going to get better, think on. As most of you know, the World Health Organisation controls much of EU health policy. Now the WHO has set up, as I have already stated on another thread, four new framework conventions on:
1) food;
2) alcohol;
3) salt; and
4) sugar.
What kind of world these people think they are creating puzzles me except that I realise it's a case of follow the money. Every prohibition makes money for someone and establishes greater degrees of control. Unfortunately, many of the members of the public and our politicians insist on fooling themselves that its all for health. It ain't and the significant divorce in thinking between our political establishment and reality is now off the barometer.
As many of us also realise, the "it's all for health" and "we can save millions of lives" factor then results in our out-of-control medics in public health wringing their hands about the costs of treating a population that lives longer and longer, albeit in an infirm condition. In order to meet this cost the response seems to be: "wrap everyone up in cotton wool and stop them doing anything risky."
This is lunacy of the first rank and frankly I shall fight unendingly to oppose it and, if I should die prematurely in the process, then as I don't wish to live in this world governed by extreme corruption and lunacy, I shall most certainly be one of the grateful dead.
The very grateful dead, I shall add.
Completely true, Blad. What's the point in attempting to live longer in what has become such a miserable, oppressive country? There are huge NHS posters already in place showing drinks and the number of units in them. If this government has not already turned a lot of people to drink, it will certainly continues to do so. I just hope that the conservatives can see just how badly people are being affected psychologically by all this lunacy.
I quite agree with you Jenny, but I fear the conservatives are just as blinkered as labour and lib dems and are ultimately out for their own glory which has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of their constituents or, in fact, the nation!
They will have to go one hell of a long way and make umpteen U turns on the way to convince me otherwise!
I notice that Sky News is reporting yet another yawn-inducing 'study' into the (alleged) effects of SHS on infants - yet more grist to Deborah Arnott's mill.
How often does one have to remind lazy 'researchers' and journalists that CORRELATION is not the same as CAUSATION ?
I'm sure, for example, that a pretty high percentage of ardent 'Big Brother' fans will suffer severe impairment to their mental faculties over the coming years - but that hardly 'proves' (even implicitly) that BB is responsible. On the other hand..............
Anyway, for those Child-Killers among you who would like some hard-core statistics to fire at the Antis, the following may prove of some interest:
http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages3.htm
It sets out the death-rate (from lung cancer) among smokers in 15 advanced countries, and makes interesting reading.
The 'worst' country, America, experiences just over 305 such deaths from every 100,000 smokers.
In percentage terms (and don't we just LOVE percentages?) that's 0.30%. Or - to put it another way - of every 1000 smokers in the States, 'only' 3 may expect to expire in this way: 997 may expect NOT.
Now, why don't they put THAT sort of 'fact' on cigarette packets, I wonder?
As someone who is not averse to a little risk in his life, I find those odds pretty acceptable. And if it means that I MAY thereby forego the pleasure of ending my days as a dribbling wreck in one of those suburban death-camps known as 'care homes' (bingo on Fridays !) - well, I'll take that chance.
Japan's rate (typically) is less than a third of America's.
I offer this merely by way of a defence to the carefully-fostered notion that smoking INEVITABLY causes lung cancer among its practitioners.
Yes, of course 'Smoking Kills' - on statistically rare occasions.
But then so do Sex, Food, Alcohol, Cars - and Giving Birth: and just imagine Life without THOSE...................
Oh well said, MartinV!
I still don't know how even the tiny proportion supposed to have contracted lung cancer through smoking can ever be proved.
If THAT could be proved, we certainly have a case!
Martin V. Like I said in my front page article on freedom2choose.........tell you what, here is the bit I am talking about.
"Something about cause and effect. It is assumed that if a person smokes, they will get cancer of the lung or throat, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, chronic asthma, stroke, or a fatal heart attack. Just to put this into context, here is an example of cause and effect. If you take a sharp implement, and stab an artery with it, you will bleed so profusely, that unless you get expert help very quickly, you will die. That is cause and effect. Driving a car does not cause you to have a fatal accident, it is only a risk. Smoking does not cause lung cancer, it is only a risk. Most drivers and smokers live to old age".
Timbone -
Quite so !
When WILL people learn to THINK for themselves, I wonder..................?
At some time in the not-too-distant past, Society - having turned its back on the Tyranny of Priestcraft - surrendered its autonomy yet again to the Tyranny of the Expert. We've simply transferred the aura of infallibility from the one to the other.
Same old trick - and the same people fall for it (ie the Dumb Majority).
Perhaps the Bandit Chief in 'The Magnificent Seven' was right after all:
"If God had not intended them to be sheared, he would not have made them sheep............."
The Cynics aren't ALWAYS wrong !
It's not just the smoking ban that has got me angry, the fact is anti smokers and pro choice are becoming more and more bitter towards each other
This, backed by government, splits us into two camps. when the bans include others IE: drinkers and the overweight the shift of balance towards pro choice should give more of a lever towards any party that wants the votes of pro choice.