Monday, 12 January 2015

"We Will Get Away With That"

In case you didn't see it, a comment under yesterday's article about the Scottish Tobacco Control Consultation yielded some astonishing information.
In April 2014 I attended an ASH Scotland conference on the subject in Glasgow. The chair was Donald Henderson - Head of Public Health Policy in the Scottish Government. I've just dug out the notes I made at the time to avoid the risk of misquoting him, and this is what he had to say about smokers: 
"Well none of us want to stand next to one do we?"
And when asked whether Scotland should follow the Welsh and ban vaping wherever smoking is banned: 
"We would like to follow the Welsh lead but we don't have the argument of second hand smoke. The argument will be public nuisance based and we will get away with that."
As I said by way of reply, it's nice to finally get some honesty from these people.

For anyone who has done even the most cursory research into secondhand smoke studies, it's instantly recognisable as piss poor science which only confessed to a derisory relative risk after being tortured to destruction by collecting together cherry-picked studies. The figure decided by the BMA and ASH for the UK was a RR of 1.24, or a 24% relative risk of an already rare event. This was the exact same RR which we were told was to be ignored as "a low actual risk" by the BBC and others in 'public health' when applied to taking of painkillers, for example.

Add into the mix that passive smoke studies were designed to find a pre-conceived conclusion so focussed on long-term exposure indoors over a long period of time and yet still couldn't find anything more compelling than an almost insignificant 1.24 RR, and it's clear that anyone who believes this is barking. Yet here we are with politicians furrowing their brows and panicking about smoke wafting near people at bus stops, in hospital car parks, and wide open unenclosed spaces like Trafalgar Square! We are already through the looking glass and making policy based on the Mad Hatter's rantings.

But Henderson has neatly let slip - as others are increasingly doing - the real motivation behind all these bans worldwide. Some people just don't like smoke and smokers. And, err, that's it. After all, "none of us want to stand next to one do we?".

It's never been about health.

Fortunately, e-cigs have arrived and are proving to be a truth serum against this bullshit because people like Henderson are starting to reveal what it's really all been about. In their arrogant zeal to do the same to vaping as they have done to smoking - that is, to hide e-cigs from the precious anti-social psychos who are happy for the freedom of others to be confiscated so that the world can revolve around them - they're showing their hand. Unfortunately, in the case of e-cigs they have nothing but a pair of twos so they are reduced to grubby Doyle Lonnegan tactics - they crookedly lie, and they shamelessly cheat.

Henderson has effectively admitted that the Scottish Government - which has evidently decided months before any consultation that they want to ban e-cigs - doesn't have even the fig leaf of pretending it's about harm or health. Nope, they'll say they are a "public nuisance" and "will get away with that".

Now, if you can think of a set of people less qualified to decide what is and isn't a public nuisance than politicians, please feel free to enlighten me. And if the public ever gets wind that it's that easy to inflict bans on such flimsy premises, politicians are pretty soon going to be pumping out white papers on everything from curry house odours to the eating of Wotsits in a public place at the behest of curtain-twitching wankers everywhere.

In a week where heads of state have descended on Paris to declare themselves principled guardians of our liberties, I wonder how "we'll get away with that" stands by way of a monument to the political class and the ideals they stand for?


20 comments:

Mark Magenis said...

JeSuisVapour

Sam Duncan said...

The “Scottish Government” have got away with a hell of a lot over the years (not least calling themselves the “Scottish Government”, for which they have no legal mandate whatsoever). And, sadly, in the short term, look set to get away with a lot more. But I take comfort from the fact they can't get away with it forever. This sort of thing will leak out drip by drip, and people will notice.

RooBeeDoo said...

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_water_torture#Origin

Poor old Antis, on their heads be it ;)

Vinny Gracchus said...

This is an excellent post and it sums up the situation not only in Scotland, but New Orleans, Canada, Australia, and pretty much everywhere these days. A policy based on falsified or manipulated data and then expanded incrementally to meet a preconceived agenda.


Je suis un fumeur

Lisabelle said...

Excellent point the many I am sure of good heart did march in Paris, emotionally stirred, but a on further questioning, it is very surface and if you dig just a little deeper very hypocritical as compared to many of the same, hating smokers and non-smoking vapers. Something's got to give.

Jack Listerio said...

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act". The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related.

HATE IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE

truckerlyn said...

Politicians are good at hypocritical as I reminded my MP. I told her that those politicians who attended the First World War Centennary Memorial were total hypocrites as they had sold down the river those who gave their lives and their health in BOTH World Wars. They fought for our freedom and democracy which politicians in recent decades have thrown away. The so called freedom and democracy politicians say we have is not the freedom and democracy that our brave men and women fought for, it is not even a shadow of it. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves, however they are all so up themselves I doubt they even know what shame is!

What the.... said...

DP and readers, permit me to point out a few important, historical articles.

Antismoking isn’t new. It has a long, sordid, at times very violent, 400+ year history. There were antismoking crusades long before the large tobacco companies came on the scene. There were antismoking crusades long
before the mass-produced cigarette. There were antismoking crusades long before movies and mass media. There were antismoking crusades long before attempts, however bastardized, at scientific investigation of smoking. There were antismoking crusades long before “socialized medicine”. There were antismoking crusades long before the recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger” [The term “passive smoking”, without basis, was coined during the Nazi era].

The common theme over those 400+ years is the extent to which rabid antismokers will lie to rationalize their hatred of smoke/smokers/smoking. There’s more than ample evidence over the last few centuries that the rabid antismoking mentality is a significant mental disorder. Yet here we are again.

The indoor smoking ban was introduced in England in 2007. There didn’t seem to be all that much debate involved. But it’s America that’s popularized antismoking – again. There was a quasi-debate back in the
1970/80s that most other countries missed out on. Vapers particularly should read the following to acquaint themselves with the antismoking mentality. The following articles are from 1978 and 1980. These were published a few years before the first study on secondhand smoke “danger” and 12 years before the corrupt, agenda-driven EPA meta-analysis on SHS “danger”. This is what antismokers believe, and have believed for centuries, regardless of facts.

Antismokers view smoking as a “deviant” behavior. Ergo, smokers are deviant. For example, see:
Smoke Gets In Your Eyes: Smoking As A Deviant Behavior (1978)
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dvz35d00/pdf;jsessionid=7EA70BBD2A44234F27CDF45D28F0F4A1.tobacco03

Then there’s this article attempting to [erroneously] distinguish nonsmokers and antismokers

The Distinction Between The Antismoking And Nonsmokers’ Rights Movements (1980)

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lqp46a99/pdf;jsessionid=5647F950375B5064AA449F152F20E8C9.tobacco03

This article is interesting because it’s written by nonsmokers’ rights activists. The “bothered nonsmokers” are really antismokers as well. But they attempt to distance themselves from the more militant and even violent antismokers. There are two sorts of antismokers. 1) The mostly
prohibitionists (e.g., Godber) want smoking banned everywhere in public, indoors and out. They then have the gall to claim that they don’t want the sale of tobacco banned and that people will still be able to smoke in their own homes. 2) The full prohibitionists seek the complete eradication of tobacco use. They, too, want smoking banned everywhere in public, indoors and out. They eventually also want the sale of tobacco to be banned.

Waht the.... said...

1.
DP and readers, permit me to point out a few important, historical articles.

Antismoking isn’t new. It has a long, sordid, at times very, violent, 400+ year history. There were antismoking crusades long before the large tobacco companies came on the scene. There were antismoking crusades long
before the mass-produced cigarette. There were antismoking crusades long before movies and mass media. There were antismoking crusades long before attempts, however bastardized, at scientific investigation of smoking. There were antismoking crusades long before “socialized medicine”. There were antismoking crusades long before the recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger” [The term “passive smoking”, without basis, was coined during the Nazi era].

The common theme over those 400+ years is the extent to which rabid antismokers (misocapnists/capnophobes) will lie to rationalize their hatred of smoke/smokers/smoking. There’s more than ample evidence over the last few centuries that the rabid antismoking mentality is a significant mental
disorder. Yet here we are again.

The indoor smoking ban was introduced in England in 2007. There didn’t seem to be all that much debate involved. But it’s America that’s popularized antismoking – again. There was a quasi-debate back in the
1970/80s that most other countries missed out on. Vapers particularly should read the following to acquaint themselves with the antismoking mentality. The following articles are from 1978 and 1980. These were published a few years before the first study on secondhand smoke “danger” and 12 years before the corrupt, agenda-driven EPA meta-analysis on SHS “danger”. This is what antismokers believe, and have believed for centuries, regardless of facts.

What the.... said...

There’s a useful commentary on the articles above. To save reposting, see the series of comments by “magnetic01” here:
http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/the-tobacco-control-mentality/

Antismokers have created an atmosphere for all sorts of deluded, toxic beliefs. Tobacco smoke has been manufactured into a “magic mist” that defies the laws of physics and chemistry and capable of producing all manner of “detrimental effects”, limited only by antismokers’ self-terrified, deranged imagination.

Hindsight over the last 35 years reveals that antismokers are neurotic. They are bigoted. They are “super-sensitive”. They are megalomaniacal. They are dictatorial. They are pathological liars. Antismoking is like a deranged cult whose primary, unquestioned belief is that they never be exposed to tobacco smoke. Not even a whiff, indoors or out. Only more deranged and dangerous is the “authority” (medical) – Public Health - that has enabled/empowered these miscreants.

Antismoking has a very sick, twisted history including torture (nose slitting) and executions (beheading). Give the antismokers
State support and their demands become progressively more absurd and hysterical, and their demands more draconian and inhumane. If one has to pick the deviant – smokers or antismokers
– antismokers win hands down; it’s a “no contest”.

What the.... said...

O/T
DP,Siegel has recently done a thread on the application of the Chapman Trick to e-cig vapor. The Chapman Trick has been pointed out to Siegel numerous times over the last few years but he still plays dumb. In the thread he points out that if “danger” is to be imputed to e-cig vapor, then it should be imputed to pharma products as well. Rather he should be pointing out that the trickery – intended to promote irrational revulsion and outrage – shouldn’t be applied to anything. And, so, the nonsense just goes on and on. Vapers in particular should read the comment by “Shadow Guest” for a background on the Chapman Trick.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/alaska-health-department-airs-first-pro.html

Most vapers are not familiar with the trick, have lapped up the trick’s use (over decades) on cigarette smoke, and, yet, are now outraged when it’s applied to e-cig vapor.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

The same personnel are going through the same policy-based evidence-making charade with minimum pricing too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11337654/Put-up-drink-prices-to-stop-AandE-crisis-say-doctors.html

Jack Listerio said...

CLEAN smoke-free air.
Arsenic is a deadly poison and airborne arsenic can cause lung cancer.
Each cubic meter of ‘clean-smoke free’ urban air can contain as much arsenic as is produced by your average cigarette!!!

How much arsenic might there be in urban air?
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/p...
urban areas generally have mean arsenic levels in air ranging from 20 to 30 ng/m3.

There is,indeed, Arsenic in cigarette smoke. Here: (The 1999 Mass. Benchmark Study. Final Report 07/24/00) we find the average cigarette has 32ng of arsenic in all of it’s smoke,mainstream and side stream.

My house has about 450 cubic meters of space, At 30 ng/cubic meter, my house contains 13,500 ng of airborne arsenic provided by society.

I smoke a pack a day and that pack will produce 640 ng of arsenic in it’s smoke.
There is a total of about 14,140 ng of airborne arsenic in my house and 95.5% of that arsenic(13,500 ng) does NOT come from cigarette smoke.

Here is a list of 33 of the 188 toxic pollutants the American EPA has found will be in CLEAN smoke free urban air.

Some you may recognize as being in cigarette smoke and there are some that are not found in cigarette smoke.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nat...

Acetaldehyde-Acrolein-Acrylonitrile-Arsenic Compounds-Benzene-Beryllium Compounds-1,3-Butadiene-Cadmium Compounds-Carbon tetrachloride-Chloroform-Chromium Compounds-Coke Oven Emissions- 1,3-Dichloropropene-Diesel Particulate Matter-Ethylene dibromide-Ethylene dichloride-Ethylene oxide-Formaldehyde-Hexachlorobenzene- Hydrazine-Lead Compounds-Manganese Compounds-Mercury Compounds-Methylene chloride-Nickel Compounds-Perchloroethylene-Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (7-PAH)-Propylene dichloride-Quinoline-1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane- Trichloroethylene-Vinyl chloride

theprog said...

About 4000 or so were killed

Similar number to what UK smokers' allegedly kill every year...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1333184/Passive-smoking-causes-100-deaths-worldwide.html

Jack Listerio said...

Its all been a Chirade. In fact the consultation itself is a charade they are gonna do what they want and everything else is just side trim to make it look like a democratic process occurred.
Judge Roy Bean might as well be in charge of it all!

Jack Listerio said...

Honestly did Glantz and Crapman make a trip to Haiti and find a few VooDoo witch Doctors and higher them to create research ideas for them............it would appear that's the case.

jude said...

I think you'd be surprised by how many vapers are fully aware of the "Chapman trick", after all, the vast majority of vapers are current or ex-smokers. We (I am a vaper and ex smoker), have suffered the same persecution that those that still smoke tobacco, have and are suffering now. Many vapers, (unlike many smokers), have studied the ANTZ propaganda and position, because we have had a gut full, and will not let them get away with their lies.


I personally, (and I'm no orphan vaper here), support the right of people to smoke, or vape, I believe in the rights of people to enjoy bodily autonomy, and not be persecuted for actions that harm no one but themselves, (if indeed they choose to do something which is harmful to themselves, which vaping has not been shown to be).


I think the more vapers and smokers that are made aware of the tricks and lies, the better. One thing needs to be very clear though, and that is vaping is not smoking, so of course vapers get annoyed when they are conflated and treated as the same thing, they are not. I do not accept the theory of SHS or THS, I've looked at the evidence and both are simply exaggerations or outright lies, however, I don't think that smoking is benign to the smoker, I know personally many ex-smokers who have improved their own health greatly by switching to vaping, and can prove it. However this does not mean I support the lies of the ANTZ or the persecution of smokers in any way.

Lisabelle said...

Jude your share is GOLDEN & TRUE. So inspiring and refreshing in this very draining fight we are in. #IMPROOF #fightovape #efvi #ecigs #vape #casaa #tagsup #truth #vape

truckerlyn said...

Perhaps they should have a smoke or several and chill out!

Blogger said...

I got my first electronic cigarette kit off of VaporFi, and I recommend getting it from them.