Dick Out And About: Pots And Kettles At The IBT

Dick has gone 'international' after being invited to key the odd column for the IBT, the first of which has been featured on their front page today.

To read about Alchol Focus Scotland's Evelyn Gillan and her twisted understanding of democracy, click here or on the screen-capped image below.

If Cuts Look Like Biting, Break Out The Swag Bag

I see that the UK tobacco control industry is proposing yet another method of stealing other people's money to fund their non-jobs.

The UK government could raise at least £500m a year by capping the amount of profit tobacco companies can make from cigarettes, academics have said. 

They are calling for state regulation similar to that used to limit the price of water.

The difference being, of course, that the water industry was built up using taxpayer funds and then transferred to private industry on the proviso that excessive profits weren't applied. After all, water is - unlike tobacco, as anti-smokers continually parrot - an essential resource. Tobacco companies have evolved using private money and their products are a choice not a necessity.

The two products could not possibly be more different. It's like comparing apples not even with oranges, but  with monster trucks.

Dr Robert Branston, from the University of Bath, said the tobacco industry was "incredibly profitable", with some companies making 67p in profit out of every £1 received after tobacco duties. He described that as an "incredible sum".

It is a sum decided by willingness to pay, one of the basic principles of economic theory which has been understood for, ooh, about 500 years give or take. It's also a principle which those on the left - with which the public health profession is overwhelmingly populated - have always despised. Mostly because the benefits their particular professions often offer tend to attract a willingness to pay level of fuck all.

This is why communist theorists, and governments which have followed their ideology, have often sought to control prices. However, they have usually done so more out of crassly misguided care for the poor, for example, rather than self-interest. Combined with incomes policy which enforces a state-sanctioned wage, they believed this would make the lot of the proud worker more affordable.

This certainly isn't the case with the BBC reported proposal.

"The results suggest that price caps could give the UK government scope to raise tobacco taxes by approximately £500m annually without affecting the price the consumer pays," they wrote. 

The report said this was the equivalent of funding anti-tobacco smuggling measures across the UK and smoking cessation services in England twice over.

And boom! There it is. It is nothing more than a veiled plea for more cash. Not for the poor or the oppressed, or the starving in Africa - but for the tobacco control industry.

They've looked through a window into the big tobacco's analogous home, seen the iPad and family silver, and think it would all look good in their new state-funded loft conversion. So they have put a call in to their mate big Dave, and his henchmen with their Everest window-busting crowbar, to come help them burgle it.

Just for added laughs, do note the way they are so considerate in thinking about the consumer. They don't want us to pay any more than we already do with this policy, apparently. Oh no, 'cause they're caring guys and girls, so they are. Perhaps they have forgotten their perennial calls for crippling increases in duty over and above inflation, which are specifically designed to bankrupt poor smokers into quitting whatever the real life consequences.

To end on a lighter note or two, it's interesting that one of the lead authors of this pre-crime casing of the tobacco industry's joint wasn't mentioned. You see, it's also the work of one of the biggest troughers in the tobacco control firmament, Anna Gilmore, whose name has cropped up here many many times before. She who is always on the look out for another way of boosting her income by producing studies to order, and someone about whom I was proud to have been quoted by tobacco tactics as being willing to "say anything for a grant".

She doesn't change her spots, does she?

The woman is so transparently compromised as a serious and objective commentator on tobacco matters that it was probably wise that BBC-published quotes were attributed to this Branston guy instead, eh?

What's more, this isn't even new. It's just a rehash of the same cash grab claptrap from 2010, which I have written about before after the daft political Welshies bought it as a credible policy rather than daylight robbery for self-enrichment.

Perhaps this austerity thing has them worried. This always seems to happen with tax-spongers, doesn't it? Faced with possible benefit cuts the most unscrupulous see no shame whatsoever in resorting to theft.

The EU And Its Imaginary Tobacco Friend

As if to illustrate the incredibly blinkered 'thinking' from those pathologically opposed to tobacco, this amusing article turned up at the New Europe website over the weekend.

Europe caves in to Big Tobacco

It may surprise you to find out that he is talking about the recent EU Tobacco Products Directive, which has been roundly accepted to have ignored all sane voices throughout the continent. Most especially, those of tobacco companies.

Based on the information I‘ve been able to gather, it appears that the Commission has capitulated to cigarette firms.

Yep, it has 'capitulated' by banning menthol cigarettes entirely, standardising the size and shape of packets and enforcing 75% of their surface area to be devoted to gruesome packaging. That's one helluva victory for the tobacco industry, eh?

Do you get the feeling that he - former writer for big business hating Guardian - might be less than detached and impartial here?

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - a corporate-funded group that once boasted Donald Rumsfeld as chairman of its policy board - made a bizarre plea to Karel de Gucht, the EU‘s trade commissioner, in late 2010. [...] ALEC dismissed all suggestions that putting cigarettes in unattractive wrappers dominated by images of disease could be beneficial for public health.

Hmm, sounds reminiscent of former Labour Minister of Health Gillian Merron's thoughts on the matter in Hansard the year before.

No studies have been undertaken to show that plain packaging of tobacco would cut smoking uptake among young people or enable those who want to quit to do so. Given the impact that plain packaging would have on intellectual property rights, we would undoubtedly need strong and convincing evidence of the benefits to health, as well as its workability, before this could be promoted and accepted at an international level.

Perhaps she was paid off by industry as well, despite government policy - especially that of Labour, let alone one of their loudest tobacco haters - being not to, err, talk to them at all.

Not surprisingly, ALEC didn‘t cite any actual data to support its inference that robust public health laws encourage perverse fetishes.

Rather like the plain packs campaign has managed to come up with no data either, except the corrupt type they pulled out of their self-interested, state-funded arses.

The Commission’s trade department has been broadly helpful to tobacco lobbyists. Rather than rowing behind Australia’s efforts, de Gucht and his team made enquiries in 2011 about whether or not plain packaging would constitute a “technical barrier to trade”.

That would probably have something to do with it being his job to do so. The clue is in the description of the department as trade - of which tobacco is a legal part, and a significant employer within the EU - and not health. It would also be something of a fascist dictatorship if such questions weren't asked between departments in an organisation which still claims to be loosely democratic. Would it not?

We should not delude ourselves into thinking that the EU is at war with the tobacco industry. Sadly, it isn‘t.

Of course it isn't. It completely ignored the vast majority of public consultation responses; in fact going so far as to airbrush out 82,000 which didn't agree with their anti-tobacco bullying; before pushing through the directive despite its author being sacked and still being under investigation for corruption.

Yes. Sure. It couldn't be more clear that the EU is tobacco's biggest pal.

Cock.

Getting Busy With The Fizzy

I don't remember a cacophony of outrage over flavoured pop in the 1990s, do you?

Industry tracker Beverage Digest has reported that consumption of fizzy drinks in the US has been declining steadily since 1998.

Yet, it's only now - after 14 unbroken years of reducing consumption - that Coca-Cola feel the need to air defensive adverts about their products and obesity.

Sounds very much like the consequence of a thoroughly modern, professionally-constructed moral panic, does it not?

As Popular As Measles

You may remember the story about minimum alcohol pricing being extended as a policy to two pubs in Newcastle, as reported here last month.

Well, there's a major fan of punishing the on-trade up there in the north east.

Mr Shevills said: “We welcome the council’s initiative to grant licenses on the condition alcohol is sold at a minimum price to control disorder and improve health. 

“We also look to the Government to set realistic, effective changes."

This is Colin Shevills, who really hates alcohol ... but used to really hate tobacco. Probably still does.

Colin Shevills
Director

A former communications consultant, he has extensive experience working in the field of public health. He previously helped to develop the brand for Fresh, Smoke Free North East and was instrumental in the successful launch of the office.

 Nevertheless, he is a bit of a local hero ... in his own mind.

“We continue to have a great response from the public and our partners since launching our campaign around Government’s consultation on alcohol – in particular our call for a minimum unit on alcohol set no lower than 50p."

There's a response from the north eastern public, all right, though the comments suggest it might be differently described than "great".

Havyasay: Hear we go again.... Mr. so called do gooder, justifying his none job with his face in the paper once more. who pays his wages? probably the tax payer again yeh! 

absent geordie: Lawyers are rubbing their hands and salivating. This whinger will not be paying the lawyers fees of course. 

Banished: Is that whingeing waste of space still getting publicity?

Right up there with pop stars in the adoration stakes, so he is.

Guilty Before Proven Innocent In Ireland

Simon Clark reports on the 'next logical step' (© every professional prohibitionist organisation, everywhere) on the never-ending path of smoker bullying. This month, it is banning smoking in cars.

But this part should be worrying to anyone who is interested in personal liberties and the proper application of judicial process.

A stumbling block for the planned legislation was the issue of how gardaí would enforce it, matters around proof of age for children as well as the rights of a driver. 

Existing legislation will allow gardaí to judge if a child is underage without the need for identification. Enforcers will also be able to rely solely on their recall of visually seeing a cigarette lit in the car if called on to give evidence in court.

This, of course, relates to the fact that Irish police will have one hell of a job deciding whether an individual is below the age set by the legislation, which would make the law tricky - and therefore costly - to enforce.

Ireland's answer is to say that police don't need to bother finding out before levying a €3,000 penalty. Just fine the bastards anyway. 'Visually' appears to means that it's not even required to leave the comfy armchair in front of a CCTV monitor.

If it gets to court, just say that it was believed they were underage and it's sorted. The accused will be guilty and have to prove their innocence. No recourse for damages or costs if the copper is an eejit - because he was only doing his job, so he was.

They've obviously learned a lesson from the equally stupid EU-led legislation on £500 car seat fines which was a laughable disaster back in 2006.

Three police forces in England are choosing not to issue fines to drivers who break new laws on child car seats. 

The rules, which came in last September, state children aged under 13 and less than 4ft 5in (1.35m) tall must use booster seats. 

But forces in North and South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester said they would not be fining offenders.

A spokesman for North Yorkshire Police said no fixed penalty tickets had been issued since the legislation's introduction, partly because it was impractical to gauge youngsters' height at the roadside.

He said: "We don't have the powers to measure children and request dates of birth. It was particularly aimed at minors, and that was the sticking point." 

And that was about the last we heard of that. This will, of course, not do when it comes to smokers. They must be punished however preposterous the rule may be.

There is also no reason to even prove the person has actually been, you know, smoking. Which means Ireland is going to see quite a lot of cases such as this one now e-cigs are increasingly popular.

He claims a council enforcement officer mistook the fake cigarette for a real one when she spotted Mr Minihan during his rest-break at a picnic area. 

Mr Minihan, 52, was initially issued with fixed penalty notices for £125 but elected to go to court and try to persuade magistrates he was 'smoking' his £38 Gamucci microelectronic cigarette.

And the court said?

Brian Howells, chairman of the bench, said his story was "consistent" but described the enforcement officer as a credible witness and found in favour of the council.

Of course he did.

No proof; no 'beyond reasonable doubt'; nothing. Just the say-so of the state-appointed official. Now Ireland has officially proposed a €3,000 fine under the same terms but without even the need to ensure that a law has been broken. So, in Ireland soon, gardaí will not only not have to prove that a passenger is under the age stated within the law but also won't have to prove that any tobacco was involved.

There is so much about Ireland's proposed law which is terrifying, or should be to a rational mind. Firstly, the entire premise is based on a flawed and hysterical theory which relies on religious adherence to one of the biggest lies ever told. But now this has fostered a bastard child in the form of an abandonment of any kind of rigorous legal process. Finally, egregious abuse of policing and judicial principles we have held dear for hundreds of years - hard evidence and innocence before guilt - is being actively encouraged in order for the state to ban legal products in private property!

After this, future possibilities are endless since we know how politicians like to employ a precedent, don't we?.

I don't care whether you are a libertarian, are indifferent to tobacco policies, or are rabidly anti-smoking - Ireland's law, as it stands, should scare the bejaybus out of you.

So, if you're Irish, refuse a lift to any midgets or short teens you know, and don't breathe out before your car heater has taken the chill out of the air - just to be absolutely safe (well, unless there's a copper who simply has it in for you).

Oh yeah, and don't believe the state will leave you to quiet possession of your home either. That's now merely a work in progress.

The Global War On ALL 'Unhealthy' Packaging

In October, I wrote about a move by the Icelandic government to ban certain types of alcohol packaging, and how a UK civil service mouthpiece was despatched in an effort to persuade a European court to back them.

The upshot is that, not only was the Cabinet Office agent (I like that terminology, seeing as no-one but a select few would have known he was going there) objecting to the slapping down of laws against pretty packaging, he was also making damn sure that the option of no packaging at all was still allowable to a government very near to you.

It did kinda explain a little more about why plain packaging of alcohol was being considered by Westminster last spring.

A new in-depth paper has now been published discussing the court proceedings between Iceland's state monopoly alcohol retailer and the manufacturers concerned. The conclusion makes for interesting, if sinister, reading (emphases mine).

In the aftermath of the 2011 UN Political Declaration on Non-Communicable Diseases, governments across the world are increasingly focusing their regulatory efforts on lifestyle risk factors, such as tobacco consumption, harmful use of alcohol, unhealthy diet and lack of physical activity. Being that these socially-accepted behaviours have traditionally been left to individual autonomy, policymakers face the difficulty of formulating socially-acceptable, legally-viable and economically-effective policies aimed at reducing the consumption of some of the relevant products. Given the prominent role played by the appearance, imagery and general packaging of products, policymakers seem determined to reduce the ability of manufacturers to market their products as they wish. In particular, as regulators have become suddenly aware of the power of marketing to induce consumer choices, they seem ready to offset those marketing techniques (that have been in use since the 1960s) that are increasingly used to market products that are perceived as unhealthy. As a result, besides the most extreme form (generally called plain packaging), other less intrusive forms of standardized packaging are emerging. Besides the wellknown example of the visual display bans at point of sale (whose EEA-legal compliance has already been judged by the EFTA Court in the pioneering Philip Morris judgment), there are – as illustrated by the present case – other attempts aimed at depriving certain products of their most glamorous and appealing packaging components. 

While regulations aimed at prohibiting misleading packaging practices existed for decades in order to limit (economic) fraud, the focus of the regulatory interventions on packaging practices is now shifting to another policy goal: that of limiting the consumption of those products that – due to their constituents and effects – are increasingly perceived as unhealthy. 

By banning or limiting the visual imagery of the packaging of alcoholic beverages and making their contents more salient through mandatory labelling, the Icelandic regulations discussed in the present case seem in line with this logic. Interestingly enough, this phenomenon – as demonstrated by this judgment – is not limited to the area of tobacco, but extends to alcohol and unhealthy products as well.

In other words, governments worldwide have now decided that 'personal autonomy' - otherwise known as freedom to choose for oneself - is no longer acceptable for consumption of legal products such as tobacco, alcohol, or unhealthy food. There is little distinction going on here, they are all gateways to ill-health according to these people. Nanny knows best and will legislate them out of existence, by destroying their packaging with enforced warnings - graphic or otherwise - and the outlawing of branding if necessary.

So, when big tobacco control says, as it has done consistently, that ...

Myth #7: It may be tobacco today but other consumer products will follow

FACT: Tobacco is not like any other product, it is the only legal consumer product on the market which is lethal when used as intended. That is why the UK and over 170 other governments have signed up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which places legal obligations on governments to strictly regulate tobacco products. Plain packs for tobacco will not therefore set a precedent for other consumer products.

... they are well aware that they are lying.

A co-ordinated and concerted effort is already underway to interfere with the packaging of every product which it has been decided is unhealthy, and it is backed by every country which has signed up to the supranational UN Political Declaration on Non-Communicable Diseases. And tobacco controllers, being one of the key proponents, were there at the time and jubilant when it was signed. 

Those who have been cheer-leading for plain packaging of tobacco should be aware that they have no right to kick up a fuss when garish state warnings and/or plain packaging are inevitably extended to their bottle of Pinot Grigio, their occasional fast food treat, or even their kids' Freddo the frog.

There is no myth here. It's no longer if it will happen to other products, but when.