[...] the “domino theory” i.e. that once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products is patently false.Yes, I know it was a silly thing to say, but it looks even sillier today.
Parents should closely monitor the films their children watch, advise the researchers, while Hollywood should look at phasing out drinking scenes, just as it has for smoking.Easy hit? Of course. These comparisons with tobacco control are a daily occurrence, it's only the likes of Amanda Sandford and her desperately deluded colleagues who don't see them. They must all be related to Arsene Wenger, or something.
Writing in the British Medical Journal Open, they suggested that Hollywood should place "similar emphasis" on vetting films for drinking scenes, as they already did for smoking scenes.
Except that 'patently false' is an absolute position to take, so a body which takes taxpayers' cash - hand over bloody fist, I might add - to deliver accurate information to legislators, should be far more careful with their assertions. The fact that they 'patently' don't means that parliament should attach no worth to their rent-seeking opinions at all. Yeah, much chance.
You see, the problem for ASH is that they simply can't trust fellow vested interest nutters to keep their gobs shut until the latest ridiculous anti-smoker scam is rubber-stamped by woefully credulous MPs.
Like the attendees of the first Global Alcohol Policy Conference in Bangkok last week, for example, who on Valentine's Day discussed ...
“Building Global NGO Capacity: What worked for Tobacco Control?"... before the next day - with leading anti-smoker Gerard Hastings in attendance - debating how to go about banning alcohol advertising.
“Control marketing: lessons learn (sic) from tobacco control movement”Nope. Not even a hint of a domino effect there, is there Amanda?