Wednesday, 18 June 2014

And We're Supposed To Trust Cancer Research UK?

At a time when Cancer Research UK's most compelling argument against objections to plain packaging is to say that tobacco companies lied 50 years ago so therefore they can't be trusted, shall we look at how trustworthy Cancer Research UK are, eh?

In October 2012, CRUK press released this report accusing tobacco companies of lying about the level of illicit trade.
Rates of tobacco smuggling into the UK have fallen despite earlier claims from the tobacco industry that tax rises would prompt an increase in the illicit trade, official figures show. 
An estimated nine per cent of cigarettes consumed in the UK in 2010/11 were illicit, compared with 11 per cent in the previous year, according to HM Revenue & Customs. 
Robin Hewings, Cancer Research UK's tobacco policy manager, commented: "The tobacco industry claims that cigarette smuggling is 'booming', 'set to grow' and that the UK is becoming the European 'hotspot'." 
"Today's figures show the opposite. This is yet another instance of the tobacco industry making claims that turn out not to be true."
Deborah Arnott chipped in too.
She added: "Once again it is clear that there is no reason to believe tobacco industry propaganda about the relationship between illicit trade, tobacco taxes, plain packaging or other tobacco control measures."
As I mentioned at the time, they were all very aware that what they were saying was just ad hominem based on old data. One might even say they knew they were lying themselves ... unless I'm being harsh and they're merely stupid.
I think you can see the problem there, can't you? Yes, the figures are almost two years out of date. 
Since then, we have had two budgets. In 2011, duty was raised by 50p per pack and earlier this year, by a further 37p per pack
It looks like [the tobacco industry] were entirely correct, because the latest figures - you know, not two year old ones - show exactly that
THE trade in illicit cigarettes has exploded in the past year - with nearly 16.5 per cent of all fags now fake or counterfeit. 
Shock figures last night revealed the black market rise - and piled pressure on to ministers. The proportion of “illicit” cigarettes smoked in the UK has soared by almost a FIFTH over the last 12 months, up from 13.8 to 16.4 per cent. 
That looks like confirmation that the illicit market was 'set to grow' and that it is now 'booming', wouldn't you agree?
The senile Sydney stuff-up was especially cocky back then, of course.

Oh dear. Looks like the mathematical genius got his figures wrong again because UK tobacco tax rises were very definitely followed by rises in 'illegal' tobacco use in 2012. We know this because the government has now categorically admitted it.

From the BBC:
Tobacco smuggling: MPs criticise 'lack of action' 
The number of illicit cigarettes smoked in the UK rose by 49% to a billion in 2012
49%? That makes the figure of 16.5% a massive under-estimate, doesn't it? The only thing "untrue" - according to Cancer Research UK - about the tobacco industry's warnings is that they weren't alarming enough!

Naturally, politicians are very keen to blame anyone but themselves, they're hardly scrupulous types who will hold their hand up to making mistakes after all. So therefore they will never admit that smokers buying elsewhere in a free trade EU zone has anything whatsoever to do with sky high taxation imposed by them, but that's how this obscene anti-smoking circle jerk works.

Politicians lie; fake charities lie; anti-smoking lobbyists lie; and then they all say that the tobacco industry is dishonest.

So, since we now know the truth about 2012's illicit figures, and we know that CRUK were entirely wrong about them ... and the tobacco industry entirely correct, if anything, the tobacco control lobby should be retracting their 2012 comments and apologising (a million to one chance, I know).

And considering what we know about their previous baseless smears, why should anyone trust Cancer Research UK now?


truckerlyn said...

I've not trusted CRUK for almost 20 years! CRUK by name, Crook by nature!

Bill said...

Took the words right out of my mouth.

ScottWichall said...

And this is also why they are terrified of e-cigs, they can see the big fat revenue stream disappearing, and all their highly paid, final salary pensioned jobs along with it.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

What would they do with their tobacco advisory group? Surely not redundancies and having to - gasp - spend money on cancer research instead of lobbying?

ScottWichall said...

Perhaps they could spend that money on jetting around the world to other luxurious conferences on how cancer is caused by sugar/alcohol/fatty foods.

Scrutiniser said...

Untill recently I would buy my UK branded tobacco in Belgium denying the exchequer tobacco tax but still producing some revenue from UK based companies and employment for British workers
Now I purchase ONLY tobacco produced and sold in Belgium thus denying the
UK exchequer ALL sources of revenue
If I wanted to,I could easily find dodgy balkan types flogging very cheap tobacco any where in Cities and large towns but I would rather take the
more legal path.
However , whatever means someone denies the Exchequer of tobacco revenue is entirely justified,indeed to some extent patriotic
How can anyone still subscribe and aid those who wish to punish and ostrarcise them When one purchases in the UK one is literally ffinancing the
persecution of oneself, in short the action of idiots and traitors
As for the CRUK scammers urgent extreme action is required to clip their flapping wings,they are a disgrace to their "charity" status,just a bunch of
freeloaders and fellow travellers.
Advisory Note! Boycott UK brands and UK purchases

truckerlyn said...

Already do - we buy ours in Majorca, and do not buy British brands, they are too expensive, even there!

harleyrider1989 said...


Court overturns Bullitt smoking ban

Three years into court proceedings, the Kentucky Supreme Court has issued a final ruling that overturns a smoking ban approved by the Bullitt County Board of Health.

The board exceeded its authority, the court said, so the ban is invalid.

Opponents and supporters of the smoking ban — which prohibited smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants — argued their cases before the Kentucky Supreme Court in April. The hearing followed mixed rulings from Bullitt Circuit Court and the state Court of Appeals.

The county board of health approved the ban in 2011. Board members argued that preventing health risks caused by secondhand smoke falls under its jurisdiction, as provided in a state law that allows it to adopt regulations “necessary to protect the health of the people.”

However, Bullitt Fiscal Court and the eight cities within the county claimed in a lawsuit that Fiscal Court is the only legislative agency that can enact a countywide smoking ban.

They asked Bullitt Circuit Court to prevent the board of health from implementing the ban. Bullitt Circuit Judge Rodney Burress agreed that the board did not have that authority and stopped the ban from taking effect.

The state Court of Appeals later overturned Burress’ ruling, saying the board has the right to impose regulations involving public health, including a smoking ban.

The decision from the Kentucky Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeal’s ruling and reinstates Bullitt Circuit Court’s judgment, according to court documents.

harleyrider1989 said...

It means all the county and citywide bans implemented by health boards are now REPEALED
This will definitely make it easier to push for repeals in towns that passed them even legislatively! On to Bowling Green

harleyrider1989 said...

from the ruling

an increase in the aggregate power of administrative agencies over the recent decades, if left unchecked, invites the ascendance of a fourth branch of government—the regulatory state. The trustees of our state and federal constitutions must bear this burden with pragmatic resolve so, that government may effectively function in the 21st century without abdicating sovereignty. The balancing of freedoms is the most delicate task of a democracy for which there is no judicial panacea. A free people vest that onerous duty to those whom they have entrusted through the elective process.”.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

They received state funding as part of the Smokefree Coalition to impose the smoking ban, perhaps that's the cash you were referring to?

theprog said...

I thought only public sector organisations are subject to the FOI Act.

c777 said...

And it doesn't even take into account the fact that most illicit Tobacco is hand rolling tobacco.
I think the estimate of illicit tobacco use is really more like a third.

Sunex Amures said...

That should be carved in stone and put where everyone can see it in Holyrood, Cardiff and Westminster. What a well-deserved slap in the face for these self-important bar-stewards.

Fred Barboo said...

Sorry for late reply. I FOI'd the DoH to detail the Section 64 (?) grants they had issued to various charities, CRUK being one.