Forest barred from "Smoking Conference"
Sunday, July 19, 2009 
Further to my post about "Holyrood's Smoking Conference" (HERE), there have been developments, which I will come to shortly.
But first, take a look at the conference agenda as it appeared earlier this week. (Click on the top image and it will take you to a cache version of the web page.)
The second image shows the agenda as it was on Thursday morning. Interestingly, a line had been deleted from "Session one: Strategic overview". The missing sentence reads:
"Speakers will also address the question of whether legislation such as this is blurring lines of personal choice and responsibility and illustrating a move towards limits on personal decision-making."
Just fancy that!
What happened next is that I had a telephone conversation followed by an exchange of emails with the organisers who responded to my concerns by complaining that I had blogged "in relation to this event when there was ongoing dialogue in relation to the conference agenda".
Ongoing dialogue? The "ongoing dialogue" went something like this: THEY asked ME if Forest could help promote the conference. I did. I blogged about it. I also offered some constructive criticism of the agenda - too one-sided, I said. Perhaps they could invite me or former MSP Brian Monteith to speak.
This suggestion was effectively ignored. Instead, I was asked to come up with some more names. Or, to put it another way, some more acceptable names. (Hence, "ongoing dialogue".)
Don't get me wrong, I have enormous sympathy for the organisers. They need the support of the public sector to make this conference work financially. Unfortunately that allows certain groups to call the shots and veto speakers (and topics?) they don't like.
Clearly, that is what is happening here.
In fact, let's not be coy about this: I have it on good authority that ASH Scotland is refusing to share a platform with Forest at Holyrood's Smoking Conference. Or, to put it another way, "there are some issues with ASH Scotland in respect to their willingness to work with certain sectors and groups".
Make of that what you will.
UPDATE: late on Thursday afternoon I was informed that a Scottish Conservative will address the conference on the subject "Arguments against increased legislation". Good to know that not even ASH Scotland can veto an elected politician.
Nevertheless I suspect that whoever speaks will probably stick to the theme of over-regulation. They might mention personal choice and responsibility but I will be very surprised if they touch upon issues like denormalisation and the bully state. Why would they? The Conservatives probably agree with the denormalisation of smoking.
Anyway the good news is that the deleted sentence been reinstated! See HERE.
The bad news is that the consumer has effectively been barred from addressing Holyrood's self-styled "Smoking Conference". Go figure.
Reader Comments (23)
All this talk of 'transparency', nothing could be more clear. Certain pristine characters would not want people like you playing with their toys Simon, you might break them.
Has Tom Harris seen this blog I wonder? I have been following Tom for a while now, and I think he could be a potential 'defender of the faith' - our faith.
Since when has the consumer ever been included in the 'debate' and 'consultations'?
I've also been posting on Tom Harris' blog for a while now, Timbone, and I've no doubt that the opportunity to publicise this latest sham will arise!
Simon, you have to agree with these people to get a say.
They dare not have you speak, it must realy annoy them that the rest of us are getting on with our lives and dismissing them as fanatics.
They hold these meetings all over the place, all nodding dogs together, it is the way they hang on to their generous pay and perks.
Why would they want you to rock the boat?
What if you pointed out some of the lies they are happy to offer? or pointed out the business that have went to the wall because of the smoking ban?
Or that adults have choices whether they agree with them or not.
The power is shifting now so they may not be dictating for too much longer, especially in Scotland where the general public has had enough of the dictatorship.
Freedom of choice will win out because the people will accept nothing less.
By the way there is a smoking ban blog on the BBC site.
It was very spirited and I enjoyed posting on it as all views were there.
They have just informed us that it will be closing down.
Clamp down on opinion there too.
ASH are very scared of debate, are they not? Very strange considering the 'debate is over', and that there is 'overwhelming evidence' that their view is correct.
It's a common tactic nowadays. Bar the opposition from debate and you can spout any old crap.
And our taxes pay them to do so.
At least a Tory is making some kind of effort (albeit probably not passionately). More proof, if any was needed, that any smoker considering voting Labour at the next GE is slightly bonkers.
I am working on offering a top rate Internationally known speaker who has already indicated a very positive desire to present his papers. This speaker whould blow the whole legislation process out of the water in the space of half an hour.
Does that really surprise you Simon? The antis won't debate, because they cannot.
They know that their argument is lost as soon as they enter the arena.
Their claims are totallaly unfounded.
What is currently happening is another moment in history where they've taken the upper-hand and our future generations will either laugh at or gape in unbelief.
The current situation is incomprehandable to any realitic individual, be they non-smoker or smoker.
Let the music play!
Simon C.
I was curious about the three versions of the agenda for the conference. First, there was the agenda as displayed by clicking on the first 'ashtray with a fag in' at the top; second, there was the agenda as dispayed by clicking on the second 'ashtray with a fag'beneath the first: then there was the agenda as displayed by your prompt towards the end of your post, to click HERE.
Oddly, the second and third versions of the agenda are identical, and so I cannot see how the deleted sentence has been restored.
When you read the two statements of the agenda, it is awfully difficult to 'see' the difference between them. Someone has rehashed the agenda in a way that obscures the changes.
I wonder if it would be useful to identify the changes in a simple, logical way? What I have done is extract the IDEAS in the two agendas and list them below side by side. The words are necessarily abreviated so that they fit.
Agenda 1 .................. Agenda 2
Contents of .................. Background of
Govmnt intent .................. The Bill's intent
Health impact .................. Experience lessons
Inequalities .................. Future policy
Communities .................. Health impact
Person choice .................. Inequalities
Persnal responsblts .................. Communities
Persnal decison making
Now, look at the list of items side by side.
If we accept that 'Contents of' and 'background of' are the same (although they are not), we can ignore them.
If we accept that 'Government intent' and 'The Bill's intent' are the same, then we can ignore them also.
Looking down the lists, we can see that we can also ignore 'Health impact, Inequalities, and Communities' - those are on both sides.
What we are left with are:
NEW AGENDA ITEMS
Experience Lessons
Future Policy
DELETED AGENDA ITEMS
Personal Choice
Personal Responsibility
Personal Decision Making.
In my experience of golf club committee meetings, golf club annual general meetings, shareholder meetings, school meetings, etc, I have never, in all my 70 years, experienced such blatant bias.
The ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation that one can put on the intention of this so-called conference is that the conference is PURELY AND SOLELY intended RE-INFORCE the status quo, and, if possible, to EXTEND THE BAN FURTHER.
That is why there are not pro-smokers on the 'panel' - and why none will be allowed.
The question that arises is this. "Is this conference being promoted and financed by the Scottish Government?
If so, why are the People of Scotland who smoke, and who want to continue to smoke, and want to have internal places to go into where smoking is allowed (with permission of the owners) not allowed to state their case? It is manifestly UNDEMOCRATIC to 'fix' the conference in advance and shaming to Scottish MPs to allow it to happen.
Are the NO United Kingdom MPs who are willing to speak out in condemnation of this blatantly 'fixed' event?
It really is vital for us to have some STRONG representation at this so-called Conference. At present where Scotland leads, England follows. This conference has been specially devised and created to enable further laws to be passed.
Our own subject is smoking but everything is linked. Giving up smoking leads to obesity and many other conditions. Stress can cause greater consumption of alcohol.
We, as smokers, need to be sure of our own ground and this certainty will lead to our influencing others in a more positive way than before. Using the argument of "Freedom to Choose" is not enough in itself to combat the outright lies and big business manipulation which has brought about the common myth that smoking is harmful. I give below two very good links which have been sent to me by a friend:-
http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/7703.html
: http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/news_public-health_does-nanny-know-best.htm
The first article by Frank Davis is reassuring and heartwarming - and very true!
The second looks as dry as dust as it is based on an article in the National Health Executive magazine for Senior Management. However, it is powerful compelling stuff, and shows the extent of the closed shop mentality we are up against.
We do need powerful spokespersons who have the knowledge and conviction to spell out the smoking lie, in public, for what it is and the damage it is doing.
Simon Clark made a good start recently, in public, by saying that the jury is still out regarding the harm that smoking actually does. What needs to be said, when it is possible, is that a jury has never been allowed - and to expose the big business and government control which has brought this draconian state of affairs about. This can only be said by people totally sure of their ground who can point out the huge health disadvantages which the ban on smoking has created, e.g.
A rise in Asthma.
A rise in Alzheimer's.
An incrase in heart disease. [Serious research is going on in America at the moment to produce a new drug based on Nicotine which should greatly lessen the onset of heart disease.]
A decrease in children's immunity systems.
Increase in obesity. [Smoking is a well known appetite suppresant; stopping smoking has the opposite effect.]
Then there is the huge increase in depression and mental illness as a result of smokers being "denormalised" and isolated as all former indoor recreation establishments are no aid to their relaxing in a social atmosphere.
The list of health disadvantages is endless. The quality of life, and health, has been diminished for smokers and non-smokers alike. In our living memory, the nation has never been as unhealthy as it is now.
But first we must be sure of our own ground. If anyone here really believes that smoking may be bad for you, [when your internal clock tells you it is good for you], let him or her do a bit more research into WHY they think that.
Rememebr that all relevant government departments, research establishments, quango's, etc., are financed by the pharmaceutical companies. They are NOT there to benefit our health but to increase the medical profession's profits.
Take a look at those two links.
It seems like the polititions of Scotland is all for dictatorship, that is why they dont want to hear from all parts of the community "forest, pub and club owners also shop keepers" the people who are effected by there silly laws, all they want to do is talk to the ones that support robotic dictatorship, and could not careless how many small busnesses, peoples freedom to choose and comunities are destroyed as long as there dictatorship succeeds.
Good points Margot, but it is also believed that stress/depression are causes of cancer, including lung cancer and this can be more readily proven, I believe, than the smoking connection.
Whichever way these quangos, etc go, they are supporting the pharmaceutical industry as many turn towards NRT in order to have a senblance of 'normal social life' and on the other hand they are selling medications left, right and centre for many ailments that were far less prevelent before the ban.
We are ALL being CONNED, Big Time.
"Don't get me wrong, I have enormous sympathy for the organisers. They need the support of the public sector to make this conference work financially."
I have no sympathy for any govt or organisation that puts money before truth, justice, equality, honesty, and the people it is supposed to serve.
This conference is surely just a mockery that anyone in their right mind cannot take seriously.
During a spat with a Conservative PCC - see here - http://patnurseblog.blogspot.com/ - I linked him to this Holyrood story to say that this is what I find unacceptable in a democracy when he was trying to tell me that because we live in a democracy, smokers should be ignored because they are in the minority.
Do not vote Conservative. They care not about our plight. It would appear they are proposing the same kind of discrimination and nanny state.
Margot wrote: "The first article by Frank Davis is reassuring and heartwarming - and very true!
The second looks as dry as dust as it is based on an article in the National Health Executive magazine for Senior Management. However, it is powerful compelling stuff, and shows the extent of the closed shop mentality we are up against."
Thank you, Margot. And as a matter of interest, prompted by a comment, I've just posted something on the National Health Executive piece you cite, unpicking their arguments a little bit.
http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/8703.html
Frank Davis,
Good to hear from you Frank.
There are some powerful new posts also on the F2C Lounge Bar "Benefits of Smoking" thread. They even point to the immunity that smokers have against the present new [probably man-made] swine flu epedemic. They also point out the damage to the human immune system when nicotine is suddenly withdrawn - hence the dangers when a smoker suddenly stops smoking. They certainly point out how smoking prevents obesity - or how suddenly becoming a non-smoker encourages it.
I liked your point that smoking does not suit everyone. A person's own body clock will tell them whether smoking is for them, just as a vegetarian discovers that eating red meat is not for them, etc.
In the past it didn't matter whether a person actually smoked or not, because the entire atmosphere in which we lived and breathed had healing tobacco smoke as part of it. Service men and women who were serving abroad were given a free weekly ration of cigarettes, so well known were the beneficial healing powers of tobacco.
Sadly, it is all now wasted by being smoked outside in the open air.
I believe that we were all so healthy by the time the late fifties came along, the medical profession and its allied pharmaceutical industry were in grave danger of becoming a bit surplus to requirements. It was then that they dreamt up the idea of creating research into the dangers of smoking. All their research, using smoke-filled areas for rats and mice, etc., did not produce the results they had hoped for and so they slightly invented results instead. It was just a matter of time before this "evidence" could be added to and built up to the huge scale it enjoys today. Pharmaceutical companies are so wealthy now they can fund government departments, universities, and research establishments. They perpetuate self-created quango's. People who work for these establishments have no choice but to continue to increase the lie and creation of draconian new laws. If they do not, they are out of a job.
Above all, the pharmaceutical companies have succeeded in brainwashing the population to such an extent that even smokers themselves believe there MUST be some harm in smoking. There probably is harm in excessive smoking - but even this can't actually be proved. It is just logical to believe that an excess of anything is probably not good for you. However, a person's own body clock should tell them. A good point was made by Lyn [above] that an excess of stress is more likely to cause cancers, etc. We are all now living in a state of extreme stress - smokers and non-smokers alike.
This is why I say that first we must educate ourselves so that we can speak with absolute certainty to others not only about the benefits of smoking but about the unhealthy atmosphere now created through removal of the benefits of tobacco smoke from the very air we breathe.
I refer everyone, again, to the very latest posts on the F2C Benefits of Smoking, Lounge Bar site.
Let's not forget, either to give due thanks to this excellent and easily accessible "Taking Liberties" site. Simon Clark spearheads the public campaign and allows us all freedom of speach to exchange ideas as we gather force and knowledge against the formidable enemy.
Sorry, I should have given a link to the BENEFITS site. It has been gathering evidence for about two years now so is a bit hefty! Best to start with the latest posts and work backwards.
I see Frank Davis's comments have just been posted on there and I'd recommend you trawl through the archives for the entertaining posts from USA by "Dancing Tiger Bait". Very informative!
http://www.freedom2choose.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1773&p=104455&e=104455
I am extremely busy at the moment, and haven't had any time to post recently, but I just noticed this news article, and just had to post it;
"Teenager in nicotine gum overdose"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8160901.stm
Thank you to whoever cleaned up my blog last night. I am grateful.
Margot,
I tried to go to the site you recommended (nathlthexec etc) but my machine would not do it, but I got there. For others who may have similar problems, here is how I did it.
go to
www.nationalhealthexecutive.com
On left side (in green), see list of 'links'. Click 'News'.
See list of topics.
Near bottom of list, see 'Public Health' - click that.
See various subjects. Look for 'Does Nanny Know Best?' - click that. You are there!
It is worth going there and reading the articles. There are three, written by university bigwigs. The articles are sensible and reasonable but they are WRONG!
Essentially, all three say that it is not in the public interest that people should be fat. They say that the Government SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Obviously, they suggest that taxation should be used to deter people from eating fatty foods. However, mere advice, they imply, is not enough.
The way in which these suggestions are put is very reasonable, but there are implications in what they say that go beyond advice and taxation. They imply that, if advice and taxation do not work, then people must be FORCED (for their own good, and for the good of the NHS) to comply. They do not say HOW people should be forced, but there is an implication that the Gov should BAN FAST FOOD JOINTS and similar actions.
THAT is what is wrong. If people want to get fat, they can do. It is totally and utterly their free will. If they want to lose weight, fine - help them - but do not FORCE them. That implication - that force will be required is what is wrong.
How will they be forced? By being DENORMALISED! By being propaganda-ised as being ABERRANT, and then as ABHORENT - as we smokers have.
Frank Davies,
How did you post on that site? I could not see a way - unless you mean that you emailed?
Further to the above, I thought that it might be helpful to show how the implication that I mention above is revealed. There is so much verbiage in these three articles that it is hard to see.
I am going to quote one paragraph, and you will see.
"It is not so much 'nanny state' meddling in people's lives, as a dose of desirable, libertarian paternalism intended to help people do what they cannot, or will not, do for themselves. In any event, leaving everything to individual choice is too simplistic especially when many individuals suffer ill health or adopt unhealthy behaviours for reasons beyond their control."
Read the paragraph a couple of times then briefly summarise.
'.....can't do it themselves.....individual choice not good enough....'.
Now read it again, and replace the word HELP in the first sentence with FORCE, and you see the real intent of the writer. You see, the first sentence does not really make sense with the word 'help' since 'paternalism' requires DIRECTION (being ORDERED). Only the word 'force' makes sense.
"It is not so much 'nanny state' meddling in people's lives, as a dose of
nasty, fascisticdesirable, libertarian paternalism intended toforcehelp people do what they cannot, or will not, do for themselves. In any event, leaving everything to individual choice is tookindsimplistic especially when many individuals suffer ill health or adopt unhealthy behavioursbecause they can't be arsedfor reasons beyond their control."Right on, Idlex.
I can confirm the participation of my preferred speaker at the event Prof. Patrick Basham, the Democracy Institute.
This now adds weight and support to the other speaker, David McLetchie MSP, former Leader of the Scottish Conservative Party who has been fully briefed on the truth.
I am sorry, Mr Gibson, but I do not know who you are.
Who are you? What is this 'my preferred speaker' thing? What is your authority to have a 'preferred' speaker? Apart from the words 'Democratic Institute', what is the stregth of the authority of this person? It will do us no good to have some idiosycratic person waffling about his favourite topic unless his opinion is universally recognised as 'having merit'.