Jobs For The Boys

Much like we've seen with the plain packaging campaign in the past couple of years, it would appear that wherever we see corruption, the Department of Health is often close at hand.

I've been reading with astonishment the obfuscation, dubious process and utter disregard for truth which has accompanied Forest's complaint to the ASA about the government's mendacious "mutations" anti-smoking adverts. The full story is at Simon Clark's blog (here and here) and Liberal Vision so do go have a read of the background. Be prepared to pick your jaw up off the floor, mind.

As Brian Monteith astutely notes, "Why do governments lie? Because they can!". And they wonder why we all despise politicians and the civil service which does their dirty work, eh?

We're well beyond the looking glass here and into fantasy democracy and pretend accountability. Debate about whether it is even the government's business to produce scaremongery to bully the public into quitting smoking has been sidelined while we all battle to challenge the state's right to lie, for Chrissakes! Unsuccessfully in this case, it would appear. You see, the ASA Council has sent a brazen message that lying with the taxpayer's cash is, indeed, perfectly acceptable in the 21st century.

As an illustration of how state institutions hold the public in utter contempt, there couldn't be a more stark example. Consider this from the timeline produced by Forest:

3 February 2014 – Letter from ASA to Forest

To update you on the progress of our investigation, we met with the Department of Health on 24 January. The minutes from that meeting will not be made available ...

Err, why not? And why was the Department of Health afforded a meeting in camera when I'm pretty sure anyone not paid by the state would have been kept at arms length for the purposes of impartiality? It couldn't be that they wanted to get their public sector stories straight, could it?

And it all took over 18 months, by which time how many people will have seen this junk science - based on a cherry-picked uncontrolled study of one, yes one, person - and believed it?

Consider too, the members of the ASA Council unearthed by Angela Harbutt:

Ray Gallagher: Government adviser.
Martin Narey: Government adviser.
John Mayhead: Government adviser.
Hamish Pringle: Advertising rep with government clients.
Anthony Earle Wilkes: Training provider for government advisers!

Each and every one seemingly happy to over-rule the ASA executive's three categorical condemnations of the Department of Health's mendacious advertising - based on expert advice - and therefore happy for the public to be blatantly misled in order to protect their personal interests.

Likewise Lord Smith, the Chairman of the ASA, who is fresh from being a total cock-up at the Environment Agency and so perhaps thinks it politically advantageous for his future career not to queer his pitch with the Department of Health Mafiosi.

Jobs for the boys, I think it's called.

In an ideal world they would all be fired immediately for abuse of their positions and charged with crony self-interest. But then, why would the establishment charge some of their own, eh?

Another day; another state abuse of our trust; and another reason why politicians and the system they operate in are overwhelmingly despised. May God rot them, every one.

The Very Definition Of Cutting One's Nose Off

Tobacco controllers have been having orgasms on Twitter about this. Boy, has it made me laugh though.

Doctor delivers $1.2 billion blow to tobacco – and counting

You mean this Doc has taken over a billion dollars from the tobacco industry? Wow, that's incredible!

In mounting its noisy counter-attack against cigarette plain packaging, the tobacco industry has appeared largely oblivious to the emergence of another potent threat to its long-term viability. 

Since 2010 Melbourne-based radiation oncologist Dr Bronwyn King, from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, has been steadily chipping away at the tobacco industry’s investor base, so far convincing Australian superannuation funds to unload $1.2 billion of tobacco company shares.

Pfft.

No, the tobacco industry has not been "oblivious", just not remotely bothered. And she hasn't been presenting any threat to the long-term viability of the tobacco industry, unless costing them not a single cent is seen by economically illiterate anti-smokers as a threat. We knew the tobacco control industry has always been incredibly stupid when it comes to economics, but they've really excelled themselves here.

The only loser in this sad story are the poor pensioners and future pensioners who are cursed to have lost high performing stocks as a result of Dr King's stupidity. The tobacco industry couldn't give a toss.

You see, the price of a company's shares is entirely separate to the profitability or true worth of the business. Unless the company concerned is thinking of announcing a rights issue to raise funds - something tobacco companies don't have to do because they are highly profitable - the share price is irrelevant to them as far as income is concerned.

Profitability and worth are real things, share price is just a measure for those who wish to make money on the back of that profitability and worth by way of yield and dividends.

Righteous types can sell billions of shares on principle but it doesn't matter one iota to 'Big Tobacco'. The share price may wane but nobody will stop smoking because of it, but whoever buys the shares after that makes a lot more money.

Tobacco company shares have always been under-valued relative to dividend yield or profits - when compared to other industries - simply because of perceived dangers of the global war against tobacco, so whoever has been clever enough to ignore all that guff has earned very well for a long time now. This is why tobacco shares are almost a constant in being flagged up by proper investment analysts as some of the best that any investor or pension fund can own.

The only possible result of Dr King's campaign will be that the stocks might be even more under-priced, even more attractive to investors, and therefore offer even more super profits than they already do for people who aren't financially stupid on the back of ignorant teen-like ideology.

Of course, the superannuation funds which now don't count tobacco stocks amongst their portfolio will be deprived of these super profits, meaning that eventual payouts will be inevitably lower than they could have been if Dr King hadn't embarked on her funny campaign. The only 'blow' here is to the people who will now have to suffer a smaller pension when they retire.

The cost to the tobacco industry, on the other hand, is not actually $1.2bn but more like {gets calculator out} $nil.

Bravo, Dr King. Bravo!

H/T Mark Wadsworth

Drafting A Plain Packs Consultation Response (Again)

If you've a vague suspicion you've seen this blog title before, you'd be correct.

Yes, we went through all this back in April 2012 when the daft exercise in appeasing tax-sponging tobacco controllers was first floated. Back then, many of you shared your responses with me which were overall quite excellent, and I do believe that our input was one of the reasons the margin of "detailed responses" was only 53/43 in favour.

You see, these affairs are usually a slam dunk for state-funded tobacco control industry organisations and their other funders, simply because they are paid to respond to them. Not for nothing have public consultations long since been considered a bit of a joke and better termed "public sector consultations". By way of comparison, those responding in favour of the equally stupid tobacco display ban were apparently over 90% (because almost no-one who wasn't paid to respond was aware of it).

Perhaps the government was hoping the plain packs process would be equally as simple; perhaps not. But the fact that so many took the time to object along with two-thirds of the public - in the largest public consultation the country has ever seen - registering their objections elsewhere seems to have sent a message to MPs which led to a long delay.

So do consider doing so again. Full details are here, with the online survey form (the simplest if you are reading online, I suppose) being here.

This second consultation is far less extensive, only involving four questions.

1. Do you have any observations about the report of the Chantler Review that you wish to bring to our attention?

Well, this is easy enough. Firstly, it didn't take into account anything except public health. It was like businesses, the economy, counterfeit tobacco made by criminal gangs, and intellectual property rights didn't exist, let alone concerns about liberty and freedom of choice.

What's more, as I've mentioned before, its summary declares that "research cannot prove conclusively" that plain packaging will work, but that Sir Cyril reckons - after having his ear bent by his tobacco control industry pals for four months - that it may have a "modest" effect. Just think about that for a moment. Despite blatantly rigging the evidence which Chantler was presented with; despite breaking impartiality rules by allowing the reviewers to cite their own biased studies; and despite excluding any governmental dissenting voices, Chantler still couldn't find conclusive evidence that it will work. Most probably because he brought nothing new to the debate so was working with the fanciful witterings of the aforementioned vested interests.

Which leads us onto the next question.

2. Do you have any information, in particular any new or additional information since the 2012 consultation, relating to the wider aspects of standardised packaging, that you wish to bring to our attention? 

Finally, and after months of obfuscating since Jane Ellison announced the Chantler Review in November with a lie, the government makes a last minute pretence at listening to the very real problems that plain packaging will cause.

Take your pick of what to mention. Perhaps the fact that police officers up and down the country are adamant that it will boost illicit and counterfeit trade; or - if it's new information the consultation is asking for - that this is already happening in Australia with illicit tobacco being cultivated on an industrial scale by criminals and, just this week, Channel 7 blaming an explosion in fake cigarettes on plain packaging might interest them.

You could refer our benevolent government to the fact that newly-released Australian statistics show around 150,000 extra 12 to 17 year olds now smoke in Australia a year after plain packaging, a huge rise of 36% which bucks a long term decline in youth smoking. That is what plain packs was supposed to be about, wasn't it? The kids?

You could also perhaps point out that plain packaging is seen as a threat to intellectual property rights by the pharmaceutical and confectionery industries, amongst others. And for good reason, despite the ridiculous claims of tobacco controllers desperate to pretend there is no slippery slope.

Or why not just mention all of the above if you're feeling saucy.

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

There isn't much to say about the draft regs since they are similar to those in Australia except that 'specialist' tobacco such as cigars and pipes appear to have been excluded (see page 12).

It would mean, though - and the consultation document explicitly states it - that articles 13 & 14 of the EU Tobacco Products Directive would also be rubber-stamped in the process. So packs of ten would be outlawed and tar and nicotine content be withheld without much parliamentary discussion. There's Cameron's new tough stance on the EU since the May elections for ya, eh?

4. Are you aware of any further evidence or information which would improve the assumptions or estimates we have made in the consultation-stage impact assessment?

I suppose it would be crass to say that they're utter rot, wouldn't it? They are though.

Maybe here you could highlight that the impact assessment on businesses has still not been passed fit for purpose a full two years after it was first found wanting by the Regulatory Policy Committee. In short, this means that the damage to businesses that plain packaging presents has been woefully under-estimated from the beginning and has still to be addressed. Perhaps they hoped no-one would notice, I dunno.

This would appear to be a problem connected to having a Department of Health packed full of tobacco prohibitionists, including one who can count Australian plain packaging advocates amongst their Facebook friends. They don't want anyone to know how much damage plain packs will cause to manufacturers, retailers, packagers and the general public - and how much of a boost it would be to criminals - simply because they know it is real and would torpedo the idea if it became public.

And that's about the sum of it. Sadly, there's no scope for informing the government of the preceding campaign corruption including such gems as the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies actively encouraging multiple signatures during the original consultation, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health deliberately misleading MPs, and also attempting to airbrush out all objections while the Department of Health tried to erase the meeting where this occurred from public record. But hey, that's how the Sir Humphreys of this world roll.

This has been a scummy campaign, led by grubby self-serving trouser-fillers, reporting to a government which would prefer you didn't interfere in their plans for making your life more miserable. Please do go and give them a piece of your mind.

You never know, they may even listen this time around.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention one other question which you will encounter, which I think is answered brilliantly by PJH in the comments (click to enlarge).

Quite.

Stop! By Order Of The Council

I thought you might be interested in some classic slippery slope opportunism from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH).

Now, I've mentioned before that the government's plan to ban smoking in cars  - you know, that's the Conservative-led government which came to power in 2010 promising to roll back our liberties and challenge the nanny state - carries very sinister precedents that anyone interested in freedom should abhor.

Well, here is something else which proves that - whatever your view of the policy is - it's quite clearly a gateway to further power grabs by state-paid empire builders.

Local authorities may assist police in dealing with offences under a proposed ban on smoking in cars with children present, it has been proposed.

The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) said it “anticipates that local authorities will also want to authorise some of their own officers so that they can take part in campaigns to promote compliance and deal with offences when information and advice fail to have effect”. 

In its response to the consultation announcement, the CIEH noted that “dealing with offences under this legislation will not be without problems”. 

It “supports the government’s intention that enforcement will mainly be the responsibility of local police who will be able to use their existing powers to stop vehicles and require drivers and passengers to identify themselves”.

"Mainly", eh? Of course, it is only the police who are currently allowed to stop vehicles and require drivers to identify themselves. The CIEH looks very much like they are angling here to be afforded the same powers.

We are always told that the police are given that level of power due to the unique lengthy training that they are obliged to undertake. The same can never be true about local councils and their employees. Just think of the people you know who work for your local council - yes, we all know at least one - and think about how very unqualified for this level of power they are. Scary, huh?

How times change, eh?

And the CIEH goes further too.

[Principal policy officer, Ian Gray, said:] “The CIEH has previously stated that smoking should be considered to be a ‘driver distraction’ as is eating or drinking at the wheel or using a mobile phone, and that an additional measure for government to consider would be a total prohibition on drivers smoking in any motor vehicle on the grounds that smoking constitutes a hazard to safe driving.”

See, that didn't take long, did it? By crikey, the ink has barely dried on the consultation wording and they're already lobbying for an extension to it. Because, as I've also pointed out before, this is just another case where children are being used as a smokescreen. It has always been the plan to ban smoking in all vehicles, this charade is just the initial vital step to con the public into giving up domain over our own private property.

Next stop, your home. And good luck with the local environmental health officer demanding entry to your property to have a look around what you keep in your fridge, eh?

The smoking ban for cars consultation is here and open till August 27th. Perhaps we should have a bash at it.

Ban Mars Bars!

There's an interesting comment underneath a Times article about how Mars confectioners are wary of the precedent that plain packaging will represent in terms of stripping companies of their intellectual property (because it will do, no matter how much the tobacco control industry pretend otherwise).

EnglishRoseWhat we should be doing is preventing sale of all Mars and similar products. They are not needed for good health. People should eat only healthy natural unprocessed foods to ensure their own good mental and physical health. 

We can start by ensuring there are no vending machines of any kind on any state property and increase the number of free water fountains.

Are there really people around who believe this? Or is this just a subtle parody of the modern self-installed health 'prefect' we are increasingly suffering?

I'm stumped.

Explosion In Fake Cigarettes Since Plain Packaging

Via Breitbart London, there's not much further comment required.

Plain Cigarette Packaging Boosts Counterfeit and Smuggling: According to a Channel Seven News report about a raid on illegal cigarette sales in a Sydney market, this idea has boosted smuggling and other nefarious activities by about 40 per cent and driven up seizures of sticks from 82 million in 2012 to 200 million last year. 

"Authorities blame the surge in counterfeit cigarettes on the introduction of plain packaging two years ago."

Just as the police have been repeatedly warning our government since the hare-brained idea was first mooted.

Whatever You Do, Don't Think Of The Children!

It seems that Simon Chapman is a trifle irritated by my pointing out that, despite plain packaging, a long term decline in smoking amongst 12 to 17 year olds in Australia has been replaced by a massive increase of 36%.

As I mentioned the other day, this would equate to the addition of around (corr) 15,000 teen smokers since the previous survey in 2010. Not a great result for a policy designed to stop kids from smoking, I think you'll agree.

So irritated is he that he has taken the unusual step of linking to my little site and trying to pretend this kind of information is irrelevant.

However, a tiny ray of hope remained. A tobacco-loving English blogger noticed that in the 12-17 year age group (the principal target of plain packaging legislation) the percentage of daily smokers actually rose from 2.5 per cent to 3.4 per cent. 

The jubilant blogger took the trouble to construct a bold graph that emphasised this massive uplift. But he failed to tell his readers that for five of 10 data cells that made up the figures, the standard error was more than 50 per cent ("too unreliable for general use") and another two cells with lower standard errors "should be used with caution").

Well, it wasn't me who produced the 'bold graph', but we'll set that aside and put it down to his usual senile frailties in not understanding the concept of blogging very well, shall we? But let's look at his main point, that the increase should be ignored.

It is true that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) express reservations about many of the figures they have presented, as they explain in the preamble.

Estimates that have relative standard errors (RSE) greater than 50% are marked with ** and those with RSEs of between 25% and 50% are marked with *. Results subject to RSEs of between 25% and 50% should be considered with caution and those with RSE greater than 50% should be considered as unreliable for most practical purposes. Only estimates with RSEs of less than 25% are considered sufficiently reliable for most purposes.

There are a couple of examples of this in the screen grab I took last week.

You'll notice that the 2013 entries for occasional and ex-smokers are qualified with an asterisk, which refers to a note about the dubious RSEs. It is also true that many of the data sets in the background were considered to be less than perfect, but the AIHW’s data tables showed no asterisk next to its data point on daily smoking prevalence for youths between 12 and 17. The institute’s table saying it was at 3.4% with no qualifiers - along with everywhere else in the excel tables where it was similarly cited absent of any asterisk - indicates they were comfortable that the percentage was reliable and, as such, statistically valid.

Or, in the AIHW's own words, "considered sufficiently reliable for most purposes".

It is understandable that the tobacco control industry is finding this so unsettling, because every campaign in every country has focussed solely on glitzy packs and how they apparently attract children. Yet last week's dramatic claims of heroic achievement were conspicuously absent of any discussion of this pretty vital piece of information. Do you think they may have been hoping that no-one would notice?

In reality, this is the only statistic which is relevant in the plain packs debate when it comes to prevalence. Has plain packaging been successful in stopping kids from smoking, or not? It's that simple.

Sadly for Chapman and his fellow tax-spongers, the AIHW survey shows that there has most certainly not been a reduction, and that it's more than arguable that plain packaging has actually made things worse.

For once, it seems that tobacco controllers everywhere are desperately hoping you'll not think of the children. Fancy that!

Nothing to see here, look away ... look anywhere but at the statistics on youth smoking prevalence. Got that? Good.