The March Of Bigotry

Back in December 2015, The Soviet Republic of Brighton Council dropped plans to ban smoking outdoors on beaches and in parks due to the fact that responses to a public consultation told them to stop being a bunch of puritanical knob-gobblers and go do something worthwhile instead.

They didn't.

 Via The Brighton Argus:

CAFES, restaurants and pubs with outside eating areas will be asked to consider introducing a voluntary smoking ban.

Hopefully, those with outside areas will consider the idea, then politely tell Brighton Council to fuck off.

It follows a consultation run by the council in 2015 asking people for their views about smoking in public spaces outside. 

The majority of all those who responded agreed it was anti-social to smoke where people are eating and drinking.

They may well have done, but it's not any of the council's business until they waive business rates for such venues, buy the stock, maintain the premises, pay the staff, and make investments in things such as - oh I dunno - outdoor smoking areas.

You see, if it was advantageous for cafes, restaurants and pubs to ban smoking in their outdoor areas, they would have done so by now. If, at some time in the future, it becomes advantageous to these businesses to ban smoking outdoors, they will do so. The very last people who should have any input into such a position is a local authority.

Customers vote with their feet, not by responding to public consultations. And, apart from some guy in Leeds who runs a children's playgroup which just happens to sell alcohol, pubs especially know very well that it's not a good idea to turn away 40-50% of your regular customers on the basis of some fantasy bollocks about smoking outdoors being dangerous to others ... which it is not, and will never be.

Besides, there are many things that are anti-social in pub, cafe and restaurant gardens, and the most anti-social of all is screaming bloody kids! If mere irritation is the criteria for a council to come wading in with its size 12s then a ban on kids, I think many would agree, should be top of the target list.

Twelve businesses, including cafés, restaurants and pubs from the North Laine, Brighton Marina and city park areas, were interviewed by officials about the scheme. 

Ten said they supported the concept of the scheme, although two had concerns about potentially losing loyal customers. 

The other businesses did not support the idea, saying smokers were generally conscious of smoking around children.

If I ran one of the businesses which being interviewed I'd be quietly licking my lips, and mentally counting the extra till receipts, at the prospect of others in my industry falling for this kind of virtue-signalling crap; it's not often your competitors voluntarily throw their loyal customers in your direction after all.

David Sewell, who runs Brighton’s Pavilion Gardens café, said: “I’ve never smoked in my life but you have to be aware of what customers want. 

“If there was a blanket ban enforced it would be a lot easier."

Ah, the old level playing field, eh? Of course it would, but it's not illegal and there is no health issue. So it's clear from the fact that businesses allow smoking in their outdoor areas that it is financially profitable for them to do so. And as there is no chance of a mandatory ban, only a voluntary one, let's hope the council gets told to take a long walk off the end of that not so long pier of theirs.

As a side note, isn't it curious that these issues only crop up in the summer when anti-smokers start grumbling about smokers enjoying their habit outdoors? When was the last time you heard one of the fake-coughing, exaggerated hand-waving types complaining that their enjoyment of the icy December air is being polluted by smokers who are stuck out there all year round? You have to be one grotesque human being to object to smokers enjoying one of very few places left for them to smoke, yet check the comments and you will see many having the chutzpah to call smokers "inconsiderate" for not respecting that the world revolves around effete, lily-livered, intolerant, bigoted bedwetters whose life comes crashing down if they have to change seat when they get a whiff of a few wisps of smoke.

If they don't want to be inconvenienced by smoke, they have the inside of every pub, cafe and restaurant in the country to choose from. Perhaps they should get back inside to an atmosphere which ensures that they never have to wash their hair or clothes again, and leave the outdoors in summer to people who have learned the admirable skill of living and letting live.

And, if you are a Brighton resident, congratulations for living in a town where this kind of irrelevant bullying is all your councillors have to contend with. It must be an idyllic place. 

Drafting An EU Tobacco Taxation Consultation Response

As regular readers know, we often take part in public consultations here, and there is an important one currently open which ends on Thursday 16th February (yes, this week) which I'd urge you to have a bash at.

The EU is planning to make changes to directive 2011/64/EU which deals with manufactured tobacco products, and one of the proposals is to make e-cigs liable for taxation as a tobacco product category. Obviously this is daft, but there is more than just that in the consultation survey, it also deals with new 'Heat not Burn' products (HnB) along with raw tobacco, cigarillos, cigars, waterpipes and other tobacco category items.

Ordinarily I'd write a guide suggesting how to respond but this time I don't have to, because Vapers in Power (ViP) have written one one already.

This consultation is pretty straightforward and won't take very long, so go read the ViP guide and then click on the EU consultation page here to let them know what you think. Remember, it closes on Thursday so don't leave it too late. 

How Dare Members Of The Public Respond To A Public Consultation!

Regular readers here will know that I often describe the tobacco control industry as 'extremists', and there is a good reason for that. You see, their methods are remarkably similar to those of totalitarian dictatorships.

Their policies consist entirely of lies, intimidation and suppression of debate and - rather like ISIS - they demand that what they say goes and for any dissent or opposing view to be silenced and/or ignored.

So this document which has just come to light won't come as much of a surprise. I've embedded it at the bottom of the page, and you can see that it is a letter from Florence Berteletti-Kemp demanding that EU President Jose Manuel Barroso ignore tens of thousands of responses from members of the public to the public consultation on the Tobacco Products Directive. Incredibly, one of the justifications she gives is that there are too many objections, because such consultations only usually attract about 20 responses, and she complains that there are organisations encouraging people to make their voice heard! I mean, how disgraceful is it that people should be urged to engage with the democratic process (such as it is in the EU), eh?

The pre-consultation report is here and, as you can see, included sections not only on conventional tobacco, but also snus and e-cigs. Considering the huge number of people across the EU who use such products, it should have been welcomed that so many wished to express their thoughts on early proposals, however briefly. I wrote about the consultation at the time in order to drive responses their way, as did former influential blogger and now LBC radio presenter Iain Dale and many others. But tobacco control has never been in the business of debating and will always try to silence any opposition to their insane self-enriching policy-chasing, so there's no way they want to hear from the ghastly public.

There is evidence that these vile anti-democratic and transparency-phobic creeps - including Debs Arnott in the days when she was still honest about her intention to medicalise all e-cigs, along with Anna 'Rent-a-junk-study' Gilmore, CRUK head Jean King, Monika Kosinska, Luk Joossens, Luke Clancy and other well-known fanatical prohibitionists -  got their way too, as we can see from this article in 2011.

The EU Commission, however, dismisses a significant portion of the responses from the 82,000 citizens on the grounds that two-thirds are from Italy and Poland, where tobacco merchants organised petitions.

This isn't an unusual tactic either. We saw the same with the tobacco display ban in the UK in 2008.

Ken Patel, Leicester retailer and National Spokesman for the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, said: "First the Minister refused to meet with retailers, now they have censored our formal response to a public consultation." 

Campaign Manager Katherine Graham said; "We are not listed as one of the respondents although our response was submitted by email and also sent by post, so we can be certain it was received. For some reason the views of 25,000 shopkeepers just seem to have been air-brushed out of the consultation report."

And it was also attempted during the plain packs campaign in 2013, again sneakily involving letters to politicians to demand the public is ignored.

It piqued my interest as I was rather intrigued as to what had been discussed at this meeting, so I submitted a freedom of information request. The response was a brief note which you can read in Scribd here, but this is the part which I found most interesting.

"On plain packaging, the APPG expressed concerns that results of any consultation could be skewed if consumer/retail groups were used to inflate responses. They also wanted to know when decisions were likely to be made."

Now, I don't know about you, but that does seem to suggest that the delegation of MPs Stephen Williams, Kevin Barron and Bob Blackman (not Paul as in the document) - along with Deborah Arnott their ASH secretary - were urging Anne Milton to ignore responses from groups such as Hands Off Our Packs, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, The Association of Convenience Stores etc. In fact, any organised group who are opposed to plain packaging. 

Note that they were not concerned about organised groups of any stripe collecting signatures which, of course, would have ruled out CRUK responses as well as SmokeFree South West's government-funded campaign. No, they were only addressing campaigns organised in opposition. 

Of course, there were no questions whatsoever about the signatures raised in support of the policy by state-funded fake charities, Cancer Research UK, and even the plain packs campaign itself, even though they were gathered using exactly the same methods. The stark hypocrisy of these odious creatures is stunning. 

All of which goes to prove that tobacco controllers are not just enemies of tolerance and freedom of choice, but also of the right of the public to have their views counted and, therefore, an enemy of the democratic process itself.

You can read their grubby letters demanding public responses be ignored at this Scribd link or scroll through it below. 

Tobacco Control Complains About Public Responses to a Public Consultation on Scribd

Drafting A Birmingham Smokefree Streets Consultation Response

Regular readers will remember that we often get involved in public sector consultations on issues we discuss on these pages. We haven't done one of these for a while but there is a consultation out now for such a crassly stupid idea that it'd be rude not to have your say.

A hospital plans to make the streets around it a smoke-free zone - asking people not to light up in nearby roads. 

The Birmingham Children's Hospital site has been smoke-free since 2005, but the trust now hopes to deter smoking on Steelhouse Lane and Whittall Street. 

People would be asked to "adhere voluntarily" the trust said, adding fixed penalty notices were not being considered. 

The plans are subject to a six-week public consultation.

In case you're confused, yes this does refer to publicly-owned streets - which are not hospital property - surrounding the premises, and not publicly-owned hospital premises. You and I pay for both so the ridiculous morons who run the place should have no right banning legal products outdoors in or on either, but they are actually proposing putting signs up prohibiting smoking (and vaping) here.

You know, on roads with cars and buses and stuff. Here's a Street View of one of the roads in question .. which also happens to contain the packed hospital car park and a six level multi-storey one. I kid you not!

Snowdon and Barnesy have both written good explanations of why this is superlatively laughable, but then the sheer cretinous stupidity of such an idea should be obvious. Yet it seems to have eluded the obviously bored and underworked staff at Birmingham Childrens Hospital. So absurd is this plan that it almost seems designed to illustrate how pathetically ludicrous and wasteful 'public health' and NHS management has become via the medium of parody. But, d'you know I think the fucktards are serious?

So let's get stuck into the consultation, shall we? Usual rules apply, these are just suggestions, so use them as a guide should you choose or just express yourself in your own style.

How strongly do you feel that Birmingham Children's Hospital should be trying to reduce smoking around the hospital?:  

 Support it strongly
 Support it
 Don't mind
 Against it
 Strongly against it

Strongly against, obviously. You see, I believe (and call me old-fashioned if you will) that a children's hospital should be spending all its time and resources TREATING SICK KIDS INSTEAD OF EMBARKING ON POINTLESS ANTI-SMOKER BULLSHIT.

I'd go further and say that whichever dribbling rubber band-flicking tax thief dreamed up this proposal is a cretin who should be fired for criminally wasting funds provided for the benefit of children in their care.

What are your views on a smoke-free zone outside of Birmingham Children's Hospital?: 

 Support it strongly
 Support it
 Don't mind
 Against it
 Strongly against it

Again, strongly against. What the fuck has it got to do with the hospital management what people do on the streets which border their obviously cash-stuffed premises? I note that one can reach the place via bus, train and tram quite easily. If any member of their staff agrees with this idea but drives to work, they are quite astounding fucking hypocrites .. oh and should also be sacked, of course.

Should the zone apply to e-Cigarettes?: 

 Support it applying to e-cigarettes
 Don't mind
 Against it applying to e-cigarettes

They've surely got to be having a laugh, yes?

Should an outdoor smoking ban on property you don't own include something that isn't smoking? Er, no. pic.twitter.com/oKdd5eGVg3

— Christopher Snowdon (@cjsnowdon) August 3, 2016

Quite.

It's also worth mentioning that this is in polar contravention of advice given by Public Health England a couple of weeks ago. I know this is becoming a theme, but if the management of the hospital were not aware of this they are woefully incompetent and should be receiving their P45.

What do you think about the proposed boundaries?: 

 The size should be reduced
 About right
 The size should be increased

No option to say that it shouldn't exist, so we'll have to choose "should be reduced". There is a handy comment box provided though, in which you can explain why it should be reduced to such a small area that it fits up the arse of whoever proposed the daft scheme quite snugly.

Should people be informed about the zone using signs?: 

 Yes
 No

No of course not. No-one should know about it because it should remain some hospital administrator's private wank fantasy.

Should members of the public ask people to stop smoking in the zone?: 

 Yes
 No

Quite obviously no! Because they are legal products being used where they cause harm to no-one. A hospital actually considering encouraging people to wag their finger at people they don't know for doing something legal in a legal setting is criminally irresponsible and almost seems like they're trying to create business for the grown-ups hospital down the road.

I mean, how very fucking stupid are these people?

Should members of staff ask people to stop smoking in the zone?: 

 Yes
 No

No! Members of staff should - as the name of the hospital implies - be treating sick kids or acting to facilitate the treatment of sick kids, not nagging smokers on a public street.

Should there be a risk of a fine if someone is caught smoking?: 

 Yes
 No

No. There cannot possibly be a risk of a fine if someone is caught because there is no law against it and neither the hospital nor the council has enforcement powers to issue one. Again, whoever thought this even a possibility is an incompetent waste of taxpayer funds and should be dismissed immediately and their pension forfeited.

If you saw someone smoking outside the hospital currently, how comfortable would you feel about asking them to smoke elsewhere?:  

 I would be very comfortable
 I would be comfortable
 I would be uncomfortable
 I would be very uncomfortable

Very uncomfortable because I'm not a cunt. I can't speak for the repulsive people this policy would appeal to though.

Do you feel that a smoke-free zone would make you feel more comfortable in asking people to move?: 

 Yes
 No

Erm why? Do these people not have legs? Can they not move themselves? What a quite staggeringly arrogant attitude that is! Smokers should be asked to move because some loathsome, effete, entitled, lazy carcass can't be arsed to keep away from something which mildly displeases them?

Where should signage be put up?: 

 On entrances to the zone
 Throughout the zone
 Inside the hospital

Nowhere, but there's no option for that. Do you think these wankers may have already made up their minds?

Section Four: What sort of images and messages should any signage contain?

Locations of places to smoke? : 

 Yes
 No

Yes, I have an idea. How about the streets outside the hospital and the fucking car park inside too!

How to contact stop smoking services?: 

 Yes
 No

What's the point? The NCSCT advises that e-cigs should be encouraged at those places but the hospital wants those banned too. Fucking morons.

Consequences of smoking on your own health?: 

 Yes
 No

This is 2016, not 1962. Stop wasting our money and go do something useful, for crying out loud.

Consequences of smoking to patients?: 

 Yes
 No

On a street? Outside? Nil.

Hard hitting visual images?: 

 Yes
 No

Always gets back to the gore porn doesn't it? What is it about the health profession that they are so interested in perversion? I think they should talk to their colleagues in psychotherapy.

Children's hand-drawn images?: 

 Yes
 No

Always wanting the kids to wave shrouds for them, aren't they? No, obviously. Because kids don't understand the argument and using children to do your dirty work is a disgrace.

There is one last comment box where you can let them know precisely what you think of the proposed policy.

Do you have any other comments about how we can create a smoke-free experience around our hospital for our patients and families?:

The simple answer to this is that they can't. It is not illegal to smoke on a street, nor should it ever be; there is no ban possible because the hospital does not control land outside its premises, this should be obvious; and even if they did, the NHS does not have, and will hopefully never have, powers to enforce fines for legal activity.

Oh, and did I say that whoever thought up the policy is wasting time and money and should be fired? I did? Good.

So that's about it. Do go here and submit your responses, it only takes a few minutes. Let's see what comes of it when they report back. And if they don't, a FOI will be very much in order, doncha think?

Politicians, Look In The Mirror

As the hysterical finger-pointing drags on and on after the EU referendum vote, there was a tiny glimmer from Nicky Morgan on the Peston show yesterday morning. Here's what she said.

"I just think actually that it's time that we treated the British people more like grown ups"

And the truth will set you free!

Yes, someone up there in the Westminster bubble finally seems to be getting it.

In amongst the cries of how "stupid" the public were for making the 'wrong' choice; or the accusations that anyone who voted to leave was quite obviously racist; or that such decisions shouldn't be entrusted to the little people, instead it should be career-minded politicians only to decide such things, here - at last - was someone actually understanding the problem.

She'll sink without trace, I'm sure, because it's almost heresy to harbour such thoughts amongst the grinding atmosphere of self-enrichment and ladder-climbing enjoyed by her peers, but she's correct.

Just read that comment again. Isn't it quite astounding that she should even have to say it? Jaw-dropping that the attitude of politicians has sunk to such a level that they do actually treat us all like children.

We know this attitude very well on these pages. The tobacco display ban, for example, is such a ludicrous policy that it is openly laughed at by everyone you speak to at any supermarket tobacco kiosk. The public know very well that plain packaging is a waste of everyone's time, and the public also knew that the ban on smoking in cars was unenforceable as the police have now confirmed by saying it “hasn’t been thought through”. Well of course not, because it wasn't imagined to further the interests of the public, it was brought in to swell the pockets of bureaucrats and parasitic grant-seeking lobby groups.

Politicians haven't listened to the public for a very long time. 'Public' consultations ceased to be about consulting the public yonks ago, and political policy has shifted instead into ordering the public around at the behest of taxpayer-funded prohibitionists, self-installed moral guardians and repulsive snobs. They want you to pay more for your booze because you're not grown up enough to make a choice for yourself; they want to stop you smoking because, well, they just don't like it; and they sure as shit don't want you eating or drinking anything with sugar in it so they're going to slap a tax on things you freely choose to buy, mostly because you like them and the companies which sell them.

These are just examples in the policy areas we discuss here, but it's the same condescending and smug attitude in every department of government ... the people are too stupid to make their own decisions, therefore those decisions must be denied them. By overwhelming force if necessary and always with a threat of impoverishment and/or incarceration. The politician and his trusty tax-leeching bureaucracy must be satisfied, the public can go fuck itself.

Of course, if you complain about any of this you're instantly described as selfish and irrelevant. Who amongst vapers who read this place has been dismissed for their hatred of the EU because "vaping is a tiny issue, not worth throwing our whole EU membership away for"? I'd guess very many. Because, you see, it's only the sages, those with wisdom, that can see the bigger picture. Yet you can bet that every other irked group with a valid claim to have been marginalised and ignored by the EU and its strangling paper-pushing self-perpetuation will have heard the same daft argument.

When every grass roots group is hearing that their cause is irrelevant, it suggests that the bigger problem is the overarching arrogance of the state. It's not the small matters and those who advocate for them who are at fault, it is the "bigger picture" that has been painted by a blind political class!

When every area of policy strives to silence public dissent is it any wonder that the public strikes back? If the political elite didn't want that to happen, perhaps they should not have taken the piss out of us for so long. If the political establishment want to apportion blame for the Brexit vote, perhaps they should take a long hard look in the mirror.

Because democracy, believe it or not, should actually be about the people as Ronald Reagan explained when he was on his way out and had no reason to spin.

'We the People.' 'We the People' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. 'We the People' are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. 

When did our country, a proud early adopter of democracy, forget that?

So well done Nicky Morgan for beginning to work out that the public don't appreciate being treated like kids and that - despite all the fear-mongering and emotional rhetoric spouted recently - we are actually quite happy to have voted out one level of wasteful, self-serving, bureaucratic, public-hating, aloof, uncontrollable and unaccountable drains on society and free choice.

The next step might be to actually do something about it, so when is that going to begin. Exactly?

The Fix Is In For E-Cigs In Oz

I've consistently said that e-cigs show up tobacco control industry corruption brilliantly, and here is another fine example.

If you've ever doubted that fact, just get a load of this from Australia!

Last year the federal health department, on behalf of the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs – senior bureaucrats advising federal, state and territory ministers on drug issues – commissioned a policy review on the regulation, sale and marketing of e-cigarettes with or without nicotine, and the practice of “vaping”. 

The department determined the tender brief, called for tenders and recommended (that is, chose), the successful tenderer.  It happened to be a consortium of the School of Public Health of the University of Sydney and the New South Wales Cancer Council. 

For nearly a year after the tender was finalised, with no fanfare, the review went underground. Lately, word’s gone quietly went round expert circles confirming consultations are happening.

That's great! We like consultations don't we boys and girls?

Except that we're not allowed to contribute, nor are the citizens of Australia!

The Prevention Research Collaboration at the University of Sydney has secured Australian government commissions to look into policy options to “minimise the risk associated with marketing and use of electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems”. They are running a closed consultation with “relevant organisations and technical experts in ENDS (electronic nicotine delivery systems), tobacco control or public health.” A background paper has been written. 

Note those words. Closed consultation. Minimise the risks of electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems. Relevant organisations and technical experts.  The unmistakable message is that vaping is in the dock, and the presumption is that e-cigs with or without nicotine are as risky to health as tobacco products.

And who exactly makes up this 'expert' committee which is accountable to no-one but themselves?

Why, committed anti-vaping lunatics, of course.

Unsurprisingly it mostly comprises public health academics believing in prohibiting and banning and “social marketing”, not kindly disposed to giving new alternatives to tobacco the benefit of the doubt while evidence continues to accumulate. 

Simon Chapman needs no introduction.  The goateed guru of tobacco control, media public health go-to person and spare-time Twitter troll is no friend of harm reduction, being stridently protective of his patch. He has picked fights with, and ridiculed, pro-vaping research, researchers and advocates from the Lancet and British Medical Journal to social media. 

Project lead Becky Freeman is his protégée and self-described “established authority on the potential of the internet to circumvent tobacco advertising laws”.  Blyth O’Hara is an expert on physical activity, nutrition and obesity, who has tweeted enthusiastically in favour of a sugar tax on the poor. 

Scott Walsberger “leads a passionate (NSW Cancer Council) team to reduce the burden of tobacco on the people of NSW”.  Bill Bellew boasts of his “Leadership…in capacity building for evidence-informed policy around the spectrum of public health issues…through tobacco control and other population health strategies”.  Adrian Bauman is a “world-leading” obesity expert with strong World Health Organisation connections. 

And James Kite is NSW president of the Australian Health Promotion Association which, in its submission to the Leyonhjelm Nanny State inquiry, said: “Based on current evidence, it appears as though E-cigarettes are harmful (though not as harmful as tobacco cigarettes), are attractive to younger people, and have more of a ‘gateway’ effect (introducing young people to tobacco smoking) than a quitting effect.”  His views seem pretty decided.

As a wise commenter points out under the piece, "If anyone has difficulty getting their head around the evil of big government, here is your case study".

Quite.

Now, compare and contrast the UK's consultation on plain packs, which in 2013 didn't just accept contributions from the public (who were overwhelmingly opposed) but also from the Australian government, and even delayed the deadline to ensure their biased views were included!

Anne Milton, then Health Minister, said on July 5 that the Department of Health’s three-month consultation was to be extended until August 10 to “make sure everyone who wants to contribute can”.  

That same day an Australian official in the Department of Health and Ageing wrote to the Department of Health requesting a two-week extension to the July 10 deadline so that Australia’s Minister for Health could sign off the submission.  

“We are currently going through the clearance process for the submission at a time when several of our key ministers are absent on leave or work-related travel, during a break in the parliamentary sitting period,” correspondence released under the Freedom of Information Act reveals. “I am sure that our Health Minister, the Hon Tanya Plibersek, MP, would welcome the opportunity to personally sign off the submission, if at all possible. To achieve this, we will require an extension, due to her short absence.  

“Accordingly, would you or the relevant area responsible for the consultation, be willing to approve a two-week extension until Tuesday 24 July? Alternatively, can you suggest a timeframe that would be acceptable?”  

Later that day, an e-mail was sent by the Department of Health’s tobacco programme manager to the Australian Government, and others, explaining that the deadline had been extended.

Surely, then, the Australian exercise will return the favour and include evidence from UK organisations who have concluded that e-cigs are a pretty good idea like - ooh, I dunno - Public Health England?

Well maybe, but considering Simon Chapman is one of the world's biggest junk propagandists against vaping - and was exposed in FOIs to be fatally conflicted in properly evaluating the PHE report - what do you reckon will happen?

The fix is in the bag in Australia, isn't it? Tobacco controllers have taken hold of the levers and will no doubt produce a load of bullshit junk to ensure e-cigs are permanently demonised Down Under. Who needs the public and due process when you have vile public-hating prohibitionists like Chappers pulling the strings, eh?

This kind of grubby, fraudulent and corrupt modus operandi has been a staple of tobacco control activity for decades, of course. The advent of e-cigs, though, has shone a 1000 watt spotlight under the rocks where these odious parasites operate.

Crappy Gilmore

Like a spoilt little brat in Asda, Europe's most prolific anti-smoking junk scientist and regular feature on these pages - Anna Gilmore - is still banging her fists on the floor and screaming about how unfair it is that governments are made to consider the consequences of their actions.

Via the Observer:

Revealed: how ‘big tobacco’ used EU rules to win health delay  

Analysis carried out by the University of Bath’s Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) ...

So perfectly objective and not biased at all, of course.

... has found that the companies played a key role in pushing the European commission’s Better Regulation agenda, which places business interests at the heart of policy drafting. They then used the new laws to block and delay a series of major health reforms, including UK introduction of plain packs.

A key role eh? Sounds terrible.

Under the terms of the Better Regulation agenda, which internal tobacco industry documents reveal was enthusiastically supported by British American Tobacco, European governments, including the UK, must conduct public consultations and impact assessments when introducing laws that affect business. 

Erm, I think you'll find that just about every company in Europe, large or small, would have "enthusiastically supported" a rule which says they should be consulted on laws which will affect business and that the impacts should be properly studied. Businesses, and I mean every one, have to conduct cost/benefit analyses or they die from making bad decisions, who except a gurning muppet would believe that governments should not do the same?

So what are Bath saying here? That businesses should just shut the fuck up and take whatever nonsense some vacant politician thinks up on a whim? Yes. Yes, I do believe so, fascists that they are.

And for why?

Leaked documents show that Philip Morris identified the Better Regulation laws as a key weapon in its battle to derail the 2014 EU tobacco products directive which introduced large-scale health warnings on cigarette packets and a ban on flavoured cigarettes and packs of 10 - both popular marketing initiatives with young smokers (only tobacco control fruitcakes say this - DP). The tobacco giant employed more than 160 lobbyists and spent £1.25bn opposing the directive’s introduction. The European commission department responsible for drawing up the directive was swamped with 85,000 submissions.

This is called democracy by anyone else, and is the same process used by developed nations all over the world. Only banana republics and dictatorships believe it is acceptable that laws can be passed by government without scrutiny, but that is exactly what Bath Uni are suggesting the EU should do. Maybe they'd be happy if the EU passed an enabling act or something like that, I dunno.

It really is desperate stuff.

Many of the claims that they made were based on dubious evidence. According to the TCRG analysis of the submissions, “the research was of significantly lower quality than research supporting the measure. For example, the tobacco companies’ arguments were not supported by any peer-reviewed journal articles about standardised packaging.”

Politicians didn't think so. Tobacco control has so perverted the term "peer review" that proper scientists must despise them for weakening any case a scientist has these days. It's a sham and has been admitted as such by the British Medical Journal, no less. Mostly because the tobacco industry has been excluded from "peer-reviewed journals" but I think Gilmore knew that when she wrote this deliberately mendacious bilge.

"The tobacco companies played a key role in implementing Better Regulation, anticipating that it would help them delay, block or weaken public health legislation,” Gilmore said.

No they didn't, this is right up there with the most hilarious of conspiracy theories. I've heard more believable guff from anti-vaxers and people who believe airplane wind shear is the New World Order doping us all. Tobacco companies were just a tiny proportion of the entire cohort of European business which supported better regulation in order to make sure corruption in government is accountable and bad laws are open to challenge. Only a moron would believe otherwise, and only an idiot would read this Observer rubbish and accept it as serious analysis.

“They have now gone on to exploit it to prevent life-saving regulations. They are flooding consultations with massive numbers of responses to give a totally misleading impression of opposition to public health policies."

Yes, because apparently tobacco companies - which we all know are part of the most trustworthy and revered of all industries in the eyes of the public Europe-wide - were able to play on their enviable popularity to mobilise tens of thousands of people to oppose something they actually believed was fantastic.

This is weapons grade woo. The product of either a depraved and incoherent mind or that of someone who gets paid shitloads of money to produce disingenuous and misleading tobacco control industry propaganda to order. You decide which.

The EU is, and always has been, primarily designed to assist cross border trade amongst member states. It's why it used to be called the common market. What the tobacco control industry's prime tax-sponging starlet seems to be saying here is that the EU has applied regulations to protect trade - which every business in the EU would support - but these particular businesses have used the regulations as they were intended, so are therefore evil.

And do you know why? Because they supported the regulations which protect every single business in the EU against corruption, government over-reach and dictatorship.

In other words, only people who agree with whatever tobacco control liars are proposing at any particular time should be allowed to talk to politicians. And they wonder why some people call them health nazis? Go figure.

Drafting A TPD2 Consultation Response

A UK Government consultation on the EU's appalling dog's breakfast Tobacco Products Directive finishes on September 3rd so I thought we might have a bash at it, whaddya reckon?

As most of you are aware, these things are really just an exercise in government pretending it is listening to the public. The vast majority of responses come from state-funded quangos and lobby groups so they are better termed public sector consultations. However, over time we have learned the rules, as I mentioned in June last year.

So, what we can gather from what modern politicians laughably call public consultations is that if a postcard or quick click response is in favour of what they and their pet powerful vested interests want to do anyway, they'll shout it from the rooftops. But if it's not, it's time for plan B and to only look at the "detailed responses" which - of course - are mostly submitted by organisations whose only job is to do so on state-supplied wages. 

It stinks, as I'm sure you'll agree, and not something restricted to just this issue - this kind of abuse of democracy is happening every day in any number of different government departments, most of it beneath the radar of anyone but those who are paid to lobby Westminster. This is why ... you should consider adding a "detailed response" to this new second consultation. Regular readers of this blog will remember that many of us did exactly this for the original consultation back in 2012, which I'm sure had an impact in restricting the biased farce to only a narrow 53%/43% split.

As with previous posts of the same nature on this blog (see here, here, here, here, here and here), I'll give you the questions beforehand with a rough idea of how I'd answer them, just pick and choose anything you like the look of. Oh and, as many fellow jewel robbers have done before, any emails of your own submissions are always a great read so most welcome.

Firstly, the TPD2 can be found here. You can post your responses or email them via the addresses below:

Tobacco Products Directive Consultation
Department of Health
PO Box 311
HERNE BAY
CT6 9BU

email: tobaccoproductsdirective@dh.gsi.gov.uk

However, there is also an online survey you can use which is also saveable so you can come back to it later if you wish. This is the method I'll be using for this guide. 

Now, before we start it's worth noting that this consultation is not like those previously. Before, there were questions which went right to the root of the proposed legislation, but this being an EU directive, the UK government has no choice but to implement it despite it being utter shit (doesn't that make you proud to be in the EU?). So the questions just fiddle around at the margins without actually giving an option to object to the the fundamental failures in its drafting. This is particularly relevant when it comes to the measures pertaining to e-cigs, which were laid down in early 2014, are already out-of-date, and were written by people who haven't the first clue about the devices or how they work.

Anyway, onto the questions, such as they are. 

Do you, or the business or organisation you represent, have any direct or indirect links to, or receive funding from, the tobacco industry?

The usual question designed to weed out anyone who is paid to give the other side of the debate to those who are paid by governments to bully people. The answer is obviously no, but you might want to ask why there's no corresponding obligation to declare links and/or funding from the pharmaceutical industry or, indeed, by governments to justify their existence and salaries by demanding things such as, ooh say ... the EU Tobacco Products Directive. 

1 Should the Government request peer review of any reports submitted by the tobacco industry in relation to certain additives contained in a priority list of additives?

Well, yeah, could do that I suppose. But at the same time, how about having a close look at the peer review fiasco with the tobacco control industry, which in many cases seems to be about as rigorous as checking the spelling in their unutterably mendacious junk studies. 

On labelling and warnings.

2 The Government intends to implement this provision of the Directive to mean images, targeted at consumers, that are used to promote the sale of products, such as retailer websites offering products for sale. Do you agree with this approach?

No, of course not. This, believe it or not, is about making Sainsbury's hide pictures of what they sell on their website. It's not enough that cigs are behind screens and soon to be covered in plain packaging, children have obviously not been protected enough so the government will have to step in and make sure little 8 year old Johnny doesn't inadvertently stumble across a pic of a pack of plain packaged Silk Cut while he is doing the family online shopping with the credit card he is not old enough to own. 

Yes, tobacco control really has become this barmy. They have so very little relevance now that they are reduced to striking out a virtual image of a cig packet in order to keep their noses in the trough. Pathetic.

3 The TPD2 stipulates where health warnings should appear on packs including that the general warning should appear on the lateral surface. The Government propose to transpose ‘lateral’ (Article 9) as ‘secondary’ (defined as the next two largest surfaces of the pack, after the front and the back surfaces) in our domestic legislation. Can you tell us of any packaging shapes where this interpretation would not be the most effective approach / would not work as intended?

Good question. I'm sure there are experts in the field of tobacco packaging the government could ask. Oh yeah, forgot, they are tobacco companies and trouser-stuffing tobacco controllers have bullied politicians into not being allowed to talk to them. 

4 The TPD2 requires Member States to choose between the warnings ‘Smoking kills’ or ‘Smoking kills – quit now’. The Government is minded to require that tobacco products be labelled with the warning ‘Smoking kills – quit now’ to align with UK smoking cessation messaging. Do you have any information/evidence that would inform this choice?

Who cares? No-one looks at them anyway, they're just yet another way for the tobacco control industry to justify its pointless and self-enriching existence. 

5 Are there any other pack shapes for cigarettes, Roll Your Own (RYO) and waterpipe tobacco on the market, other than pouches and squat cylindrical tins/tubs, where there may be technical difficulties in applying any of the new health warnings under Articles 9 and 10?

Ask the tobacco companies and stop wasting our taxes with this, for crying out loud! 

6 To ensure the combined health warnings are applied evenly across each brand of tobacco product, it is proposed that images should appear on between 1/24 (4.15%) and 1/12 (8.33%) of products and each set of images in the TPD2 picture library should be rotated on an annual basis. Are there any additional costs, above and beyond the current regime, imposed by this proposal?

You're proposing additional regulations which change the way companies are forced to operate and you're asking if there are going to be costs to this? Of course it's going to impose costs! Is the next question about the impact on ground cleanliness in woods where bears live? 

7 The draft regulations require producers to ensure the correct health warning is applied to tobacco products. We are minded to treat retailers who repackage tobacco products at the point of sale the same as producers. For example, loose tobacco packaged at point of sale, should comply with the full labelling provisions, including the rotation of the combined health warning. Do you agree with this approach?

No of course not. So some vile tobacco controllers tell you that they've got bored with flicking rubber bands round the office and the result is that old Bert who fought in the war has to have gory images all over the bag his pipe tobacco is served in? Just leave people alone you hideous anti-social tossbags.

8 The Government is minded to derogate individually wrapped cigars and cigarillos from the full labelling regime, requiring only the general warning ‘Smoking Kills’ or ‘Smoking Kills – Quit Now’; one of the text warnings from the combined warning list but no picture; and a reference to the smoking cessation information. Do you agree with this approach?

The only chink of light in the whole consultation. Yes, of course they should be excluded, but then so should everything else, it's just a circle jerking exercise on the taxpayer teat. 

9 & 10 are about illicit trade and how to stop it. Both can be answered in the same manner, just change the words a bit.

10 We would welcome initial views on how track and trace and security markings may impact on business, and what the key issues for businesses will be.

Erm, why not ask the businesses who make the stuff and are harmed by an illicit trade entirely caused by the tobacco control industry? Oh yeah, you can't, so instead you're asking the people who caused the problem how to solve it. Masterful stuff. 

Then we get to cross border sales, including e-cigs.

11 If a registration scheme were introduced for cross-border distance sales, the Government is minded to require the nomination of an individual to be responsible for verifying that the product complies with the provisions in the UK regulations, before the product is supplied to the consumer. Do you agree with this approach?

No, because - and this may come as a surprise to you numbskulls - if I were running a very big company with lots of money I would welcome these proposals with open arms. This is, unless I've missed something, the Tobacco Products Directive, you know, designed to tackle tobacco. So why are you considering handing a huge competitive advantage to big tobacco companies while simultaneously adding an expensive regulatory burden to small independent e-cig companies. A cynic might think this isn't about health but more about providing work for expensive tax-sponging 'public health' makeworks, eh?

12 Should cross-border distance sales of tobacco products to consumers be prohibited?

No, wasn't the EU supposed to be about free trade within Europe? I'm sure I read that somewhere, or perhaps I was dreaming, I dunno. Still, if you do, I suppose white van man is going to be very happy to add a premium to his prices, I'm sure he'll thank you. 

13 Should cross-border distance sales of e-cigarettes and refills to consumers be prohibited?

No. What is it about free trade across the EU you people don't understand? It's the only good bit about the whole Leviathan of pan-European solidarity for Chrissakes!

14 What systems to verify the age of customers are available to, or currently used by, businesses involved in distance sales to other EU Member States?

Oh now you ask eh? It didn't bother you much when other EU countries had effective age ID controls on tobacco vending machines that you banned anyway. Back then you claimed Johnny Foreigner was obviously an idiot, so why ask about their prowess now? Sheesh.

15 Should novel tobacco products be subject to a notification scheme?

If you want to close down small companies, hand markets to large ones and push up prices, yes. Knock yourself out. It seems to be a recurring theme, doesn't it?

16 Under a notification scheme the Government is minded to include provision to require manufacturers or importers of novel tobacco products to provide, with any notification, information on:

 (a) the toxicity of the product, its ingredients and emissions;
 (b) the addictiveness of the product, its ingredients and emissions;
 (c) the expected effects of the product on the cessation of tobacco consumption by existing users of tobacco products; and
 (d) the perception of the product by consumers or potential consumers (or predictions as to how the product will be perceived), including the attractiveness of the product.

 The Government believes that this information should and will be available to manufacturers and importers prior to launching all new products. Do you agree with this approach?

Because the private sector only exists to provide information to wonks, civil servants and quangos. They have staff just sitting there waiting to provide you with pointless information, their business and customers obviously come second to satisfying the state. No, of course we don't agree with this approach. When someone is harmed or dies from using an e-cig as intended, you might have a case to demand this kind of overweening bollocks, till then fuck off.

This is the first of many questions which show how very damaging TPD2 will be. It's not enough that e-cigs are helping smokers to quit tobacco and clearly providing enjoyment to millions of people, the EU and, by extension, the UK government are insisting on imposing terms. You know why? Because mad intolerant anti-smoking obsessives who derive income from being a right royal pain in the ass don't like the idea that someone somewhere might be having a good time.

On Article 20 (object to this and support a court case against it here if you haven't already).

17 The Government is minded to use the TPD2 definitions of an ‘electronic cigarette’ and ‘refill container’. Do you foresee any problems with inconsistency with the definitions in The Nicotine Inhaling Products (Age of Sale and Proxy Purchasing) Regulations 2015?

Here's where the big faffing around begins. Article 20 is a pile of steaming horsecrap which has then been placed back in the nosebag for the horse to crap it out once again. It is written by idiots, so is therefore not fit for purpose and should be abandoned completely. Or, as Clive Bates describes it ...

"a catalogue of poorly designed, disproportionate and discriminatory measures that will achieve nothing useful but do a great deal of harm."

But instead of asking us about that, this consultation just impotently asks vapid questions about the peripheries of the legislation. If you ever wanted a sure sign that the UK is in hock to the EU up to its eyeballs - whether it's good for the health of the nation or not - this is it. 

18 The Government intends to handle notifications of e-cigarettes and refill containers electronically and make all information contained in notifications automatically available to the public unless this information can be considered truly commercially confidential. What information contained in the notifications should be considered commercially confidential?

People are quitting smoking using e-cigs and it has not cost the taxpayer a penny. What is not to like? Just butt out, all this proposal will do is hamper the progression tobacco controllers claim to want to see. 

19 The Government is minded to put the obligation on ‘producers’ (which includes manufacturers, importers into the UK and those that rename a product) in the transposing regulations which will ensure that there will always be a person in the UK who collects information about suspected adverse effects in relation to e-cigarettes and refill containers. Do you agree?

No. You need one person to log adverse effects in relation to e-cigs. He can sit in Whitehall and spend all day on Facebook if he likes, they are so few and far between. Why should government demand that consumers pay more for a beneficial product by obliging companies to employ someone on the back of the hysteria of state-funded blowhards who see their tax-sponging income stream drying up?

20 The Government is minded to give the Secretary of State for Health (SoS) the power to prohibit the supply of an e-cigarette or refill container or to require producers and suppliers to recall a product if he/she considers them a serious risk to public health. Do you think there are other options that should be provided to the SoS, for example the power to require modification of a product or to require enhanced monitoring and/or reporting of company data?

No. I can't think of anyone least qualified to decide policy on e-cigs than politicians and/or civil servants who have made such a monumental cock-up with this legislation. Remember this bit of utter incompetence from Anna Soubry? According to her e-cigs were dumped from the TPD2 two years ago!

Give the SoS power over e-cigs? He or she knows absolutely nothing about them or how they work. You may as well give a fox the keys to a hen coop. 

21 The TPD2 provides Member States with two options on the wording prescribed in the health warnings to appear on packs of e-cigarettes and refill containers. Member States must choose either a) ‘This product contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance’; or b) ‘This product contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance. It is not recommended for use by non-smokers’. The Government is minded to require that e-cigarettes be labelled with the warning ‘This product contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance. It is not recommended for use by non-smokers’. Do you agree?

No. You've been telling smokers they are smelly, thoughtless, unattractive, and undesirable house sharers for years, now you want to deter them from switching to something else? Never been about health, has it?

I mean, why on Earth would you do that? Is your drive to meddle in an industry you don't understand really so strong that you're blind to the consequences? 

22 Should the Government charge the industry proportionate fees to recover costs associated with the TPD2, including the following activities:

No to all check boxes. It's your ridiculous and ill thought-through TPD, if you want to back it to the hilt, do it with taxpayer funds so you're accountable for the dreadful waste. Why should consumers pay for it through the prices that they pay for products they choose to consume? 

23 Should retailers and importers be given the proposed transition period until May 2017 to sell through old stock?

Of course, anything else should be regarded as theft by the government and courts should hold you to account. 

24 Do you have any comments on the drafting of the regulations, including anything you want to draw to our attention on the practicalities of implementing the regulations, as drafted?

Yes, Article 20 especially should be ripped up and forgotten about. If the EU won't do it, how about the UK government grows some balls and tells the EU to go away and think again? This government is constantly talking about renegotiating our terms with the EU and ditching rules that are detrimental to the UK, well here is a perfect example. 

Your own health body, PHE, published a report last week which goes against almost all of the terms the TPD2 imposes on e-cigs. Are you seriously going to go with the Brussels car crash instead of listening to a quango you pay half a bill per year to fund? 

And lastly the Impact Assessment. This will make you laugh.

25 (a)What is the likely cost of reassigning or retiring capital and adjusting manufacturing processes in response to the restrictions on certain product lines and requirements for additional health warnings?

Hmm, let me think. Considering no regulation in the history of state interference has ever been cost neutral or has reduced costs, I'd say costs will increase, don't you? I'm sure the economic heavyweights in the tobacco control industry will argue that black is white again though, as usual.

25 (b)What are the likely marginal impacts of implementing the TPD2 on e-cigarette manufacturers?

There will be no marginal effects whatsoever. There will be a lot of huge, stifling, game-changer destroying apocalyptic ones though.

25 (c)We are aware that tobacco products that benefit from transitional arrangements (menthol), or are exempt from the ban on characterising flavours, will no longer be able to provide a reference to the flavour on the packet. We would be interested to receive views on the impact of this provision.

It's quite hilarious that the TPD says menthol is not allowed to be communicated on packs anymore. So what does the UK do when plain packaging comes in? How are those who choose menthol cigarettes - which will be available until 2022 - supposed to work out which ones they are buying. More to the point, how are retailers supposed to identify which packs contain menthol? You really couldn't make this kind of incompetence up, could you?

There are two more on the IA but they can be answered easy enough by pointing out that government Impact assessments are usually garbage and this is no different. 

Anyway, if you feel like having a go, do click here and have your say. It's quite cathartic and why let state-paid miserablists set the agenda, eh? You have till September 3rd so get a wiggle on, I'd say. 

Tobacco Products Directive Goes To Consultation

This may well be the only article posted here this week as Puddlecote Inc is going through a major reorganisation. I've been with Reed this afternoon discussing recruitment of two new specialist transport roles to handle a large uptick in fortunes which led to the best results in the company's 20 year history last year. We're also commissioning architects to expand our office space until we can source suitable new premises. All very exciting but it tends take chunks out of my fun time.

However, I have had a brief look at the government's newly-released consultation on the measures to be implemented following the EU's Tobacco Products Directive and it's like watching someone you are supposed to trust deliberately crashing your new car.

You can read the consultation document here if you wish to immerse yourself in a morass of pointless - and in places, counterproductive - tobacco control industry bullshit.

At first glance, I think it deserves a full walkthrough at some point in the future as your humble host has done in the past (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). Yes, I know these things are not "public consultations" but instead public sector consultations - designed as makework for parasite civil service and fake charity tax troughers - but the results have to be published and can sometimes serve to show how corrupt the whole process is, so definitely worth submitting to.

If you find anything interesting in there yourself, do let me know, but I only got as far as question 2 before the increasing tobacco control barrel-scraping idiocy became evident.

The Government intends to implement this provision of the Directive to mean images, targeted at consumers, that are used to promote the sale of products, such as retailer websites offering products for sale. Do you agree with this approach?

This, relates to the {cough} overwhelming promotion of tobacco products all over the country. All advertising may be banned, plain packaging passed, vending machines unlawful, tobacco hidden behind screens at Mr Patel's corner shop, and smokers exiled to a bunker under the central reservation near Leicester Forest East service station, but Sainsbury's still have this page on their website, y'see.

This is, of course, unacceptable. Because thousands of kids - while doing the family shop online with the credit card they are not allowed to own - will stumble across the images and instantly be forced to buy dozens of packs. Banning these images is a no-brainer, then, isn't it?

Or, perhaps, it's not really about the kids, and tobacco control has never actually cared about the choices of adults. What do you think?

There is also an incredibly funny piece of lunacy contained in the document regarding menthol cigarettes. You see, the TPD aims to ban flavoured tobacco (cos the kids, natch) but - to a storm of criticism from anti-smoking obsessives - gave a stay of execution to menthol till 2020. Not that you'll know if you're buying menthol or not anyway.

5.19. The TPD2 will prohibit products benefiting from the transitional arrangements (menthol cigarettes) or exemption from characterising flavours (pipe tobacco etc.), from being labelled with any reference to taste, smell or flavouring. For example, a brand of menthol flavoured cigarettes may continue to be sold until May 2020, but will not be able to be labelled as ‘Brand X Menthol’.

That's right. You can ask for menthol, or flavoured tobacco, but there will be nothing allowed on the packaging to say if you are getting what you asked for or not. Considering plain packaging is supposed to be implemented here next year, that means for four years the UK will be in the utterly bizarre situation of deliberately stopping consumers of a legal product the right to know what they are buying. You won't be even be able to see from the pack design because the colour green will be banned and the word 'menthol' will be too.

When I say tobacco controllers are insane, this is exactly why I can never be proved wrong.

Do go read the whole consultation, it's well woth it for an insight into exactly how the taxes you pay are being abused and handed to thoroughly disgusting trouser-fillers in Shoreditch, Geneva and Brussels. To the benefit of precisely no-one.

The civil servants who drafted it even round it all off with a very funny joke.

The draft regulations will be finalised in due course, taking into account all relevant considerations.

Yes, of course they will. Just like every other consultation British government agencies have embarked upon.

If you wish to respond to the consultation, you have till September 3rd so no rush, plenty of time. The online submission form can be found here.

Wales Proposes Ignorance-Based Policy-Making

Yes, it's about this twat

The massed ranks of anti-smoking extremists have previously introduced us to tactical ploys such as policy-based evidence-making and science by press release, but today Wales's cranks have declared that they intend to position their country as a world leader in a new disipline. Ignorance-based policy-making.

From the BBC:

People will be banned from using e-cigarettes in enclosed places such as restaurants, pubs and at work in Wales, under a new public health law.

I don't know how people who are quitting or reducing smoking being "exiled to the outdoors" (© Deborah Arnott, 2008) can be considered a 'public health' measure, but the term has been so bastardised in the past decade or so, it's not a complete surprise.

It has been announced by pie-devouring cocksocket Mark Drakeford (pictured above), a dribbling imbecile I've written about before. Here's what he was wibbling about in his press release.

Announcing the measures at the Two Hearts Tattoo Studio in the Welsh capital, the health and social services minister, Mark Drakeford, said the laws aimed to protect the health and wellbeing of people living in Wales. 

He said: “The Welsh government has a responsibility to create the conditions which enable people to live healthy lives and avoid preventable harm to their health. Wales has a strong tradition of using legislation to improve public health and I am confident the measures in the public health bill will continue this."

Yes, he is confident that sending a huge message that e-cigs are potentially dangerous is a great way to "create the conditions which enable people to live healthy lives". Now, I've mentioned before that it's natural that smaller populations will naturally produce less talented politicians, but Drakeford is in a class of his own for incompetence and dog whistle fuckwittery on this matter.

The BBC, as is their wont, led with the story on every platform and saturated the airwaves on their monopolistic network of regional radio stations today, and in every one they had a spokesman or woman in favour of the ban who was astoundingly ill-informed about vaping.

For example, in Lancashire we had Mark Temple - of the lie factory known as the BMA - declaring that "they sell them as e-cigarettes therefore they are cigarettes" and that "if you spill e-liquid on a child's hand it can kill them"; in Devon the presenter insisted on saying e-cigs are smoked despite vape being Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year in 2014; and on 5 Live some idiot from PHE Wales was citing an aircraft mechanic's debunked junk science as fact. The displays of desperate ineptitude were stunning.

This, of course, attracted spittle-lipped anti-smokers to the telephone lines up and down the country to declare what a great idea it was. The underlying justification amongst these revolting, intolerant, anti-social narcissists was that their seeing someone exhaling a harmless vapour is 'irritating' and they don't care for it much so, naturally, it must be banned. On that basis - if the proposed Welsh ban were to be realised - this is a precedent which would mean absolutely anything could be banned by government diktat.

We've known for a while that politicians worldwide seem to have forgotten how important freedom is, and are more than happy to extinguish self-determination and personal liberties for a few headlines, but this is a hideous new development in state idiocy trampling on the rights of its citizens in favour of short-term fame.

You see, for a start there was a "public" consultation on this proposal - hilariously sub-titled "Listening to you: Your health matters" - which I wrote about in November.

Well, they're officially called 'public' consultations but - as I've mentioned many times previously - these would be better described as public sector consultations. Most of the public don't know they are even happening but fake charities, state-funded bodies and quangos are paid from our taxes to write responses to them.

This one is no different, which you can see for yourself by reading the whole thing here. Except for one particular question, that is.

This is a result of 64.6% of the 525 answers having been submitted by the public. Novel, huh? What's more, it doesn't include another 279 which weren't received by the deadline - if they had, the percentage would have been 86% against the stupid proposal.

It should be the end of Drakeford's nonsense, shouldn't it? I mean, if you ask the public a question in a democracy and they overwhelmingly tell you to go boil your head, that's pretty final.

But just you watch them wriggle away from such an inconvenient statistic, because there are signs in the document that they're already working on it.

I'd boast that my political antennae were working well that day but it's all too predictable these days, isn't it?

As you can see from today's media frenzy and Drakeford's obese, jowly, punch-inviting face gurning through interviews, he has completely ignored the public. What's more, he has also ignored the overwhelming evidence that shows that e-cigs offer no gateway to tobacco smoking or any possibility of harm to bystanders, and dismissed indisputable facts presented to him by genuine experts on the subject. He has acted like an unaccountable dictator and seems genuinely proud of it. Welcome to 21st century 'democracy'.

I'd also like to remind you that ASH and their fellow tobacco control hysterics - who are ironically on the side of the angels in this debate - bear personal responsibility for this state of affairs. It is they who created this tsunami of self-centred stupid and they who empowered every curtain-twitching fuckstick in the country to complain about irrelevances and demand state bans to destroy property rights and allow the world to revolve around them. It is with the tobacco control industry's tools and useful morons that Drakeford is able to write a message to the 2.6 million e-cig users in the UK - according to ASH's own research - that their experiences are irrelevant and they will be "exiled to the outdoors" on the whim of the most disgusting in society. ASH should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, but then that's only if they are truly the vaper's friend, which a few politely-worded statements today don't prove very much.

Still, there's always time for something to change and you can read a knowledgeable summary of how the legislation may pan out here. Additionally, Wales online also reckon the ignorant Drakeford could have bitten off more than he can chew.

It was clear early on Tuesday that the there was little support among opposition parties for the move in the Public Health Bill, introduced to the Senedd on Tuesday.

However, the damage could already have been done. Today's avalanche of BBC led negativity has already deterred thousands from considering e-cigs while simultaneously encouraging the most naturally vile in society to proudly air their obscene prejudices with full encouragement from the state.

You see, this is what happens when a politician who is woefully inadequate is given power to table legislation based on snobbery, myth and narrow-mindedness, fuelled by the bigoted rantings of a tiny few busybody neo-puritans with more taxpayer cash in their possession than brain cells.

A Triumph Of Cowardice

"What is the face of a coward? The back of his head as he runs from a battle" - Frank Underwood

Online convenience store trade site Better Retailing today published some observations from the Westminster Committee Room where MPs hid themselves away to avoid a debate in the House of Commons over plain packaging. It conveys the exasperation of independent retailers who have been comprehensively butt-fucked by politicians since the last election in 2010.

After strongly opposing the tobacco display ban in opposition, both Conservative and Lib Dem coalition partners about-turned within months and passed it anyway, costing every small shop in the country thousands they can ill afford. Now they are screwing the trade again but are too ashamed to do so in parliament in case Conservative divisions might be widely noticed in the run up to an election.

It has to be noted that plain packaging is only being passed due to Conservative cowardice in the face of Labour flinging insults about Lynton Crosby, so their further cowardice in not affording a debate in the commons is to be expected I suppose.

But the Better Retailing article succinctly details the rank cowering gutlessness of enthusiastic promoters of the policy too.

4. The sanctimonious hypocrisy of some anti-smoking MPs is breathtaking. 

One Labour MP, Kevin Barron, dismissed the small business arguments against plain packaging because of funding for a campaign that the NFRN had received from British American Tobacco. 

“I exposed in 2011 exactly what the tobacco company was up to. I have no doubt that many of the missives that we have had screaming about what was going to happen to small retail were close to tobacco, even if they were not funded by it, as that campaign was,” Mr Barron said.

This is the Kevin Barron who is so confident that the public is behind his personal hatred of tobacco products that he fully endorses the WHO's cowardly Article 5.3, the sole purpose of which is to silence debate about policies proposed by anti-smoking lunatics. Cowardly because if they had their ducks lined up and the evidence is solid, they should be able to take on all-comers, no?

Better Retailing continues ...

Quite what is wrong for a company like BAT supporting retailers with less time and resources to protect a key category in their store was not explained in the committee. Ghoulish references to so-called “Big Tobacco” seem enough of an argument in themselves.

Well, I don't wish to criticise the author for coming to the party late, but what's wrong with any large business supporting small businesses is that the tobacco control industry is scared of a proper fight. So they have sought for decades to avoid one by silencing opposition (hence article 5.3). They don't want anyone with less time and resources having their say at all, so have engineered a position where "ghoulish references to 'Big Tobacco'" is, indeed, all that is required. Why be brave and challenge your critics head on when you can just spinelessly cheat, and nobble the other side?

Indeed, support that independents receive from manufacturers is about the only counteracting force against the might of supermarkets which, as Nick de Bois explained, will be at an advantage due to their deeper pockets and less tobacco-dependent business models.

The tobacco control industry couldn't care less. They don't receive income from retailers, so sod 'em.

Plus, as MP Philip Davies asked, isn't ASH government funded? Is it right that one side gets major financial backing to put forward its views while the other is castigated for it?

Welcome to the disingenuous and cowardly world that self-interested tobacco controllers have created for themselves. State-funded Goliath against the small shop Davids who are deprived of any support.

While Jane Ellison MP later argued no government funding ASH received was for the purpose of lobbying, Mr Barron said that it would be okay if that was happening, anyway. 

Mr Barron MP, like many of his opinion, seem worried about one form of corporate advantage or influence, but naive or blinkered when it comes to all others.

That'll be because the anti-smoking industry is two-faced, shifty, and corrupt. As are its cowardly pet politicians. The sole purpose of ASH is to lobby - it is the only thing they do and what they were set up for in 1972 - so any cash they are handed can only be used in one respect. But Ellison is too spineless even to admit that simple fact.

The plain packaging campaign has been quite brilliant for putting tobacco control and its simpering scaredy cats in the spotlight. We've seen gross examples of every kind of sharp and corrupt political practice known to man, so it's apt that it should all be rounded off with an object lesson in chicken shit.

Conservative cowardice for bowing to a tiny few state-funded blowhards; tobacco control cowardice in not allowing robust opposition; cowardice in Ellison timidly letting Labour drive the agenda; cowardice in Ellison also not admitting ASH is using taxes to lobby; cowardice of Labour politicians in dismissing genuine small business concerns with lies; cowardice in favouring quango propaganda over public responses to consultations; and finally cowardice in confining MP opposition to a committee room to cowardly try to hide party objections from the electorate.

I hope every UK retailer watches the vote tomorrow and notes the choice of their local incumbent. May a hundred thousand counter-top campaigns roll against craven MPs who allow valid concerns from local businesses they are shafting to be portrayed as "screaming" by Big Tobacco.

Let the retail lions see the political sheep.