Tobacco Control: Nazis, Hypocrites AND Terrorists

Now, I've argued before with reference to a BBC radio debate that there are anti-smokers who can quite legitimately be termed as Nazis, but via Taking Liberties we find a post by Dizzy where he was astonished by a claim made by Cecilia Farren of ASH (that's the jolly gal on the left).

You can listen to the short Radio 4 article by scrolling to 50mins 30secs on iPlayer here, but in case that is time-limited, the relevant quote from Farren is as below:

"On the other side is long campaigning by the tobacco industry for, you know, frightening businesses. It is, it's an absolute terror campaign."

Of course, being part of ASH, she is on the moral high ground here. Because frightening businesses is a tactic that ASH find appalling! They would never even consider such a method suitable for their own ends. Oh no. Never!

ASH has sent a registered letter to all the UK's leading hospitality trade employers, warning them that the "date of guilty knowledge" under the Health and Safety at Work Act is now past, and that employers should therefore know of the risks of exposing their staff to secondhand smoke. Employers who continue to permit smoking in the workplace are therefore likely to be held liable by the courts for any health damage caused. ASH and Thompsons intend to use the letters in any future court cases as evidence that employers have been fully informed of the issue.

ASH and Thompsons are also planning further steps to encourage employees who believe their health has been harmed by smoking in the workplace to seek legal advice on making a claim for compensation. These will be announced shortly.

Oh, that? That's just threatening pub owners with an avalanche of crippling no win no fee claims, and pointing out that if the hospitality industry were to resist smoking bans, then ASH would actively encourage employees to sue. That's not 'frightening businesses' at all. Not really.

Shall we move on?

There was something else Cecilia talked about too, namely that Holland's sensible smoking ban amendment had been engineered by ...

"[...]vested interests of the tobacco industry."

See, that's another thing that ASH really hate ... people profiting from political campaigning. Cecilia would never dream of doing anything so gauche.

Oh, hold on.

"I started smoking at university," confesses Cecilia Farren, founder of GASP, a highly successful mail order company stocking everything and anything connected with stopping - or not starting - smoking.

So successful, in fact, that they incorporated earlier this year. But I'm sure Cecilia takes no salary from such a profitable venture because that would tend to suggest that she was a 'vested interest' in yesterday's debate, and she is definitely against that sort of thing.

Of course, this is all leaving aside the fact that the Dutch case was brought by small bar owners, not the tobacco industry. In fact, to illustrate exactly who was involved in a more user friendly way, I thought a pie chart might help.


Oh dear. It looks like the only vested interest yesterday was Cecilia herself. Someone who personally profits by the demonisation of tobacco, whilst also being a member of an organisation which is quite happy 'frightening businesses' with financial 'terror campaigns'.

Since it's nearly Christmas, perhaps it might be timely to send her a gift-wrapped dictionary with Rank and Hypocrisy highlighted in dayglo orange.