It Was Never About Health

It's something which is regularly pointed out by those very knowledgeable in tobacco control matters and harm reduction alike, but a couple of recent articles starkly illustrate the hypocrisy of anti-smoking bodies on regulation of alternatives.

Or, to put it more bluntly, they don't really care about health or wellbeing one iota.

Commenting on a Daily Mail article by ex-Sky correspondent, Ross Appleyard - detailing his harrowing experience of using Champix - we see the harm reduction principle being openly quoted.

Dr Clare Gerada, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, says: "As a GP, I prescribe Champix to my patients who want to quit smoking - usually along with nicotine patches and gum. In my opinion, the risks of smoking are far greater than any associated with taking the medicine."

Some may argue that the possibility of immediate suicide and/or violent murder is rather more scary than a 50/50 chance of tobacco-related complications in old age, but the point is at least valid to put forward.

Or would be if the exact opposite argument isn't regularly employed to prohibit electronic cigarette use.

[...] the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, a group that has helped states and localities draft laws on smoking bans, includes electronic cigarettes in its model legislation due to the fears over the safety of the devices.

"They raise significant health concerns for us. We don't know what is in the vapor mist, we don't know what else is in the contents of that electronic cigarette," said Cynthia Hallett, executive director of the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. "The good news is more research being done. ... We may learn more, and if in the end they're safe, we'll have to revisit."

But she said that to be allowed in places where regular cigarettes are banned, electronic cigarettes wouldn't just have to be safer; they'd have to "do no harm."

So, on the one hand, harm reduction is perfectly acceptable when the product is produced by pharmaceutical interests, even if it is clear that the product is far from 100% safe.

But when talking of e-cigs, their 90% safer potential is to be completely ignored, and consumers effectively forced back to tobacco use which - according to tobacco control's own statistics - will kill half of them.

The tobacco control industry would command so much more integrity if it just admitted that their crusade never had anything to do with health, wouldn't it?

See No Evil

With the tobacco display ban and gorily-adorned plain packaging looming, there has been talk of a return to the days of cigarette cases. Perhaps, some say, there could even be a market for selling brand stickers to hide the gross images, or boxes tailored to your choice of smoke.

Think again. The health-obsessed control freaks are way ahead of you, as this guy has found to his cost.

A Polish artist has been warned that he could end up in prison - for painting a supermarket shelf of cans of beer.

Police in Cieszyn seized Michal Oginski's canvas, claiming it breached the country's tough alcohol advertising laws and could encourage young people to take up drinking.

The 25-year-old painter said: "I was told by police that my work corrupts youth and promotes alcoholism. But it's just a painting of some beer cans.

"It's part of a series of paintings depicting supermarket products. I've got others of washing powder and sugar. There's nothing sinister or corrupting about it."

His lawyer Beata Lejman explained: "This is absurd and I've never heard of such a ridiculous law. Are they going to confiscate Rembrandt's pictures which show casks of wine?"

Don't rush them, Beata love. I'm sure they'll get round to hiding his stuff too, in time.

Local police chief Kazmierz Plus said: "I don't make up the law - I just uphold it.

"And this painting breaks the Act of Sobriety Upbringing law, which is universally binding."

And that's something which is 'universally' true of all bansturbators - their wicked self-satisfaction must have no possible loophole, even for artistic purposes pour encourager les autres.

When the legislation is enacted, anti-tobacco will be pushing to ensure that any use of a visible tobacco product can be classed as a crime. They've been hinting at it for a while, remember?

This story does, of course, also further highlight the foolishness of alcohol afficionados in attempting to draw some distinction between their chosen vice and tobacco.

In the eyes of the public health community, they're just as much a hopelessly weak-willed, industry-manipulated, addicted stain on society as the smoker.

The joy of denormalisation, eh?

Link Tank 04/06

A trio of recommended crackers at the top, the rest will come in useful while you're waiting for the BBQ coals to light.

"Intolerance is a starting point, the arguments are an after-thought"

US TV Execs admit in taped interviews that Hollywood pushes a lefty agenda

Blanks for the memories - why we forget our childhood

The immense complexity of teenage sexuality laws

Will spray nicotine be the next smoking fad?

Dodging burgers won't save the planet

The dangers of paddling in the sea

Civil liberty leads to economic growth, says World Bank

Smoking is no longer a health condition

German court rules that 'kiss my ass' is an insult

Duff beer now exists and is taking off in South America

South Australian prisoners to get two carrots a day once jails go smokefree

Beer For Men, Just In The Wrong Place

To the Knight Rider soundtrack, this is how I want my beer to be made.

But then again, this is an Australian beer we're talking about. So it would seem that no matter how much testosterone you pump in, it doesn't stop the country being stuffed full of pussies. Nice try Hahn, but you're flogging an antiquated myth there, may as well just print the label in a nice shade of baby pink and have done with it ^[1][2].

^[1] Yes, I know it's not real, and ...
^[2] ... do you think we should leave the poor terrified dears alone now?

That Peter Hitchens Debate

Forget the start of the cricket season, kids walking around in 'Class of 2011' hoodies, barbecues on sale in Tesco, and Grandma turning the central heating down to tropical, the new portent of summer is the first Voices of Freedom debate. So get yer half-lengths out lads, those lazy, hazy days have arrived!

A good one it was too, with jovial bonhomie and King Rat-esque cynicism equally represented at last night's IEA curtain-raiser.

The topic was "What are smokers' rights in a free society?", and most of the panel were of the opinion that there should at least be some. However, slouching with a pursed grin - not unlike Randall Boggs - was the panellist most attendees were there to see, and who some chose to avoid, Peter Hitchens. As expected, his opinion was quite the opposite but even so I think he surprised many with the depth of his tobacco dislike and the policies (and justification) he believed in.

Smoking, he asserted, is not a personal choice for the simple reason that you aren't in charge of your bodies at all. Those around you are. Got that? Oh come now, how hard is it to get your head around? You don't own you, other people do, and it's your duty to live life without tobacco.

He - a 'conservative' remember - wasn't thrown off course when other panel members asked if he believed smoking should be banned, either. He was of the opinion that yes, indeed, complete prohibition is a worthy goal to aim for. Because, you see, prohibition has had a bad press, and only the stupid believe that it hasn't worked before. Drug laws have been a failure because possession hasn't been an imprisonable offence since the sixties, according to Hitchens, and what we all term 'prohibition' in 1920s America wasn't that at all, it was merely a ban on manufacture and transport of alcohol, not possession. In fact, Hitchens put forward the view that it had actually been a roaring success as the US public became marginally healthier. The thousands who died of poisoning, and the murder and mayhem that came with an increase in organised crime were just collateral damage in a worthy, and successful, experiment.

He also spoke of the myth of persecution towards smokers, describing such a perception as "a failure of proportion", and tied it all up by rebutting the idea of car pollution being far worse an irritant by suggesting (hopefully in jest) curbs on driving to force people into cycling instead.

It was a real tour de force, on a par with our Phil's defence of CCTV, and Michael White's machine gun delivery of clichéd anti-libertarian fallacies last year.

But he still got a round of applause as he finished speaking, and checked that his tin helmet was securely fitted, because we're nice like that.

And the questions did, indeed, all end up being aimed at Hitchens. Amongst them your host who - having an idea that Hitchens may deny the fact that smokers are being bullied - came prepared with a few choice quotes from our Psychosis Catalogue. His slippery reply - which dodged the point of my raising the matter - was that government should have nothing to do with stopping those who attack smokers, just as there shouldn't be particular hate crimes against gays and muslims. That a crime is a crime and when an offence is committed it should be punished no matter the target. Of course, my point was that government shouldn't be encouraging such behaviour in the first place, which I pointed out to him later only to be fobbed off with another sleight of hand response.

But hey, that's what debate is meant to be all about, and the presence of Hitchens made for a lively and crackling evening. I shook his hand and, as far as I know, no-one actually called him a wanker that I know of. Quite a success.

Outside, I was rather honoured to be able to have a brief chat with another panellist, the delightfully genial Sir Ronald Harwood. I don't know how the conversation got round to Twitter, but he was baffled as to why so many people used it. I tried to explain that, for many, it's a great way of following and hearing from famous people ... though for someone who has won an Oscar for writing screenplays for mega stars and being knighted which - by definition - means he has met the Queen, perhaps he wouldn't have found that aspect overly appealing.

Still, he left with one of my cards so hopefully may pop in and browse here someday. And if he ever comments, you just watch how quickly "by appointment to the beknighted gentry" turns up as a sidebar alongside Philip's beaming mugshot.

The rest of the evening was spent outside a nearby pub chewing over what we had seen and heard, all of us clutching a copy of the Privacy International publication that was launched on the night (you can read it here, and good it is too).

I'm already looking forward to next week's debate, though I've promised myself to leave by ten at the latest to avoid the pleasant weather and company again seducing me into a situation where I am seeing two tube station entrances and hoping I guess the right one to walk through!

Resistance Is Crucial

Further to yesterday's article - written with a tub of popcorn in my mitts while watching early indications of the drinks industry's downfall - it's worth highlighting this from the Morning Advertiser.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has written to supermarket giants over a failure to remove alcohol promotions from the entrances to their stores.

Lansley wrote letters to Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer, Co-Op and Waitrose reiterating a request that the supermarkets pledge to remove alcohol promotions from the front of retail outlets where they are in plain view of customers.

A DoH spokesperson said: “Under the responsibility deal of March Asda was committed to ending promotions there by the end of April but other supermarkets are yet to follow suit.”

And they'd be best advised to categorically refuse to do so.

As examples on these pages continually illustrate, it doesn't matter how compliant or co-operative any business is towards health nutters, they will quite simply never be appeased. All the supermarkets quoted should make each and every tiny concession as damned difficult as possible for any politician to implement. Bite, obfuscate, kick, delay, procrastinate, and scream to the high heavens if need be. Just don't backslide without putting up one hell of a fight.

Because once you accept any demand from the health lobby, they have you right where they want you. No, seriously. Let's consult the tobacco control template for precedents, shall we?

1960s: Tobacco companies agree to withdraw TV cigarette advertising
1980s: Tobacco ads banned in print and hoardings
1991: Cigar and loose tobacco adverts banned on TV
1999: Cigar ads banned in cinemas
2003: All advertising and sponsorship banned
2010: Legislation passed to hide all displays
2011: Plain packaging mooted, an end to all brand awareness

Drinks companies and their retailers can be as accommodating as they like, but it won't stop the march of the miserablists. They'll simply move on to 'the next logical step'.

Worse, in fact, because asking for booze to be moved away from shop entrances may sound reasonable on the face of it, but you just know it won't stop there. Indeed, the very act of appeasement brings with it further ammunition for opponents of the drinks industry, as eruditely explained by Howard Stoate in 2009.

"In choosing voluntarily to remove its logo from child-size replica Rangers and Celtic shirts two years ago, Carling more or less admitted that the association between the clubs and the brand had a direct and positive influence upon young people's attitudes towards the Carling brand."

Yep, the act of doing as requested by MPs and swivel-eyed tax leeches only adds fuel to the fire. It proves, so it does, that the industry is not only evil - as the temperance advocates have already decided - but that it is knowingly evil. Best just stick to one's guns, then, and say no. Repeatedly.

There really is no way of winning with these bastards. So it makes sense to ensure that the next step is as difficult as possible to embark upon, by giving the old Harvey Smith and telling them to go for legislation if they dare.

It'll need to be done often, of course, and also should be accompanied by astute courting of consumers to pro-actively stave off the coming storm. Because the process of demonising any organisation which sells alcohol of any description is gathering pace, with tobacco control helpfully directing from behind the scenes.

Remember this?

The Wine and Spirits Trade Association (WSTA), which speaks on behalf of major supermarket chains on alcohol issues, accused organisers of a "calculated and deliberate attempt to mix the issue of alcohol misuse with the known and proven health harms caused by smoking".

WSTA spokesman Gavin Partington said: "The decision to refuse access to those in the industry who wish to discuss issues regarding alcohol misuse openly and honestly only adds to the impression that Alcohol Focus Scotland have their own agenda and wish to stifle debate".

The 'summit' was a supreme success, apparently, with ASH Scotland passing on tried-and-tested techniques to those who seek to 'denormalise' alcohol along the same lines as tobacco. There is another collaborative meeting of tedious anti-smoking and anti-alcohol joy-crushers planned for Wales in October, too.

If you click on those links above, you'll notice the presence of Gerard Hastings - an adviser to Kevin Barron's motley collection of hideous parliamentary health freaks - at both. And he was also quoted by Howard Stoate in his parliamentary speech referenced above. All very incestuous, but targeted laser-like at those who manufacture, retail, or enjoy drinks containing alcohol.

They're coming for you, drinks companies ... and in a very big way. Resist at every turn, or watch the floundering tobacco industry very carefully for it will be your future. One of impotence, condemnation, and calls for your ostracism from polite society - or worse - from a brainwashed public.

And yes, you're correct, you can detect a soupçon of self-satisfying 'I told you so' in my writing.

ASH Televised Quote Of The Day

"What's wrong with denormalising smokers?"

Deborah Arnott, ASH, CNN 31/5/2011