“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Sherlock HolmesI have an embarrassing apology to make.
In the past, I've been of the opinion that the BMA is opposed to smoking. I stupidly thought that occurrences like the BMA's Vivienne Nathanson lying on the BBC about the effects of smoking in cars; their twisting of basic rules of economics to pretend that smoking costs outweigh revenues when in actual fact it's bollocks; and their backing of evidence-free plain packaging as a tool was proof that they were big anti-smokers.
My view has been comprehensively trumped in the past week though. Boy, do I feel silly now!
Last week, another rail company - this time, Greater Anglia - were persuaded to ban an alternative to smoking by the BMA ....
A spokesperson said the ban was "in common with other train operators" and the decision haf been taken "in line with the British Medical Association's recommendation that e-cigarettes should be included in the ban on smoking in public places."... which follows in the footsteps of Scotrail, who also heavily referenced BMA advice to explain their own ban.
But that was eclipsed by their single-handedly opposing BBC Breakfast's assertion yesterday that the public generally think e-cigs are a good thing.
Of course I should have noticed the signs. Vivienne Nathanson has lied before about e-cigs, whilst only last month BMA GP Andrew Thomson was imploring Celtic and Rangers to ensure that their fans are kept in the dark about a potential substitute for tobacco.
I should also have taken more note of their absurd scaremongery towards e-cigs and come to the proper conclusion which was staring me in the face all along. That they must actually be big fans of smoking, presumably because it helps their chums in the pharma industry if smokers quit or cut down the politically-correct (and state-funded) way.
So, to all those I may have misled, I say a big sincere sorry.
Having said that, I'd like to offer a conspiracy theory instead of the obvious reality of the BMA's approach detailed above. It might help me to salvage something out of all this if you'd consider it.
Perhaps, silly as it may seem in light of their recent public pronouncements, the BMA aren't actually shilling for big pharma. Maybe, just maybe, their way of approaching the tobacco and/or e-cig debate is something like this.
Nah! You're right, I'm just making excuses for myself. This is the world-renowned BMA we're talking about here, not some bunch of amateurs who talk nonsense without thinking of the bigger picture of global harm reduction.
So that's settled then. The BMA are not an anti-smoking organisation at all. How stupid was I to think otherwise, eh?