Every Which Way But Truth

It's clear as mud to those who watch the antics of the tobacco control industry that they're struggling on many fronts with their oft-conflicting lies, but they're even starting to confuse me now.

I seriously think they've collectively lost the plot.

Jean King from Cancer Research UK declared categorically to MEPs in Brussels on 25th February that counterfeit cigarettes are not a big concern. I know this as I watched the live internet footage in disbelief as she said it, so did Snowdon.

Jean King of CRUK denies that counterfeit cigarettes are more dangerous than licit cigarettes. Ignorant, irresponsible nonsense. #TPD
— Christopher Snowdon (@cjsnowdon) February 25, 2013

This, of course, is because her presentation was solely designed to counter the real fears that police and customs officials have expressed over how plain packaging will encourage counterfeiters.

It's nice to see that she isn't bothering to say they're wrong. Instead, she makes the argument that when levels of illicit tobacco flooding into the country inevitably rise after the UK install plain packs, it won't be anything to worry unduly about.

Perhaps she should be liaising with state-funded Smokefree South West a bit more then.

A CAMPAIGN to make people aware of the dangers connected to illegal tobacco was launched on Monday. 

It is estimated that one in five smokers in Wiltshire now smoke illegal tobacco, with the trade equating to a £211million retail value. 

The partnership between Wiltshire Council, HM Revenue & Customs, Wiltshire Police, Smokefree South West and health care trusts wants to prevent illegally imported and counterfeit tobacco from reaching the region’s streets.

Oh dear. Even crooks get their stories synchronised before mouthing off to authority. Schoolboy error.

“These kinds of products are very dangerous for people’s health as they are not regulated – in many cases the contents have just been swept off the floor of factories and we’ve seen packets containing rat droppings before,” said Rob Green, Wiltshire Council senior public protection officer.

Someone is obviously, therefore, lying here. All that remains is to ascertain whether it is Smokefree South West or Jean King.

Police Inspector Lisette Harvey said: “We are behind this campaign as we know that criminal activity in these cases is not always just related to smuggling and can have sinister undertones attracting and exploiting young people and children.”

If it is Jean King, the above would seem to suggest that she is making statements to the EU which will have the polar opposite effect of her regularly stated aim of protecting children.

I'd say both organisations have a duty to be consistent and honest when giving 'expert' advice but, to be blunt, I don't think any of them actually really care about truth.

H/T Wiltshire Times article e-mailed by Observant Yokel

Now That's What I Call A Reply To An MP

If, last month, you chose to give your MP a nudge by saying no to plain packaging, it's likely you will have received a reply by now.

Quite a few blog visitors have shared what they received with me - which is always welcome - and it would seem the general response is to run through the standard ASH-provided anti-smoking stats and state that there has been no decision yet ... which we already know. Very few actually address the very real dangers plain packaging might encourage.

If you receive one of these, it's always worth sending a follow-up letter to show that you're not a sheep who is happy to be fobbed off in such a way (the same applies to routine rejections of parking ticket complaints, by the way).

Here is an object lesson on how to do exactly that from fellow jewel robber, The Meissen Bison.

Many thanks for your letter and its contents which I read with interest and, of course, with a predictable sense of disappointment. 

There is so much in this business which ought to be anathema to a Conservative and the attitude evinced in your letter embraces precisely the kind of authoritarianism and nanny-knows-best approach which your party now shares with the other two. 

You begin by stating that 'we want to reduce the number of young people who take up smoking' and my immediate reaction is who precisely is this “we”? It certainly doesn’t include me and it probably doesn’t include anybody who recognises that people have a right to go about their lives without interference if they aren't breaking any laws. Furthermore, a Conservative used to know that young people are the responsibility of their parents and not of the state and that to encroach on a parent’s responsibilities in one area is to encourage an abrogation of responsibility in others, a process which is already quite far advanced. 

You continue by referring to your Tobacco Control Plan designed to stop over 200,000 people smoking by 2015.. 

‘Control’ in the context of lawful human behaviour is the language of totalitarian regimes and should be abhorrent to you. The figures of course (and I suspect we both know this) are bunkum but I notice that you sidle away from the target group of young smokers-to-be in your first paragraph to include inveterate smokers of all age groups in your second. This obfuscation and manipulation of statistics and forecasts is favoured by those who want to dress up flimsy and partisan positions as substantive arguments and history tells us, alas, that this can be quite effective up to a point and for a while. As indeed can all forms of ‘control’. 

You go on to refer to your public consultation process. I have to question the validity of any process where lobbying organisations have free rein to grind their axes in complete harmony with a government target already posited in the title of its earlier policy document. 

When you write to say that you are carefully considering and analysing responses to the consultation, I am bound to wonder how likely it is that your analysis will conclude that for 200,000 people to have given up between 2011 and 2015 no special action is required; that death, taxes and consumer choice will achieve the reduction you are looking for? 

This is not even a remotely likely conclusion. What we will get instead is that two years into the process from 2011 signs will be said to be encouraging but further measures will nonetheless be appropriate for the promotion of human health and to protect our young people. It’s a script which almost writes itself. 

Underpinning all of this is the hypocrisy of successive governments in hounding the luckless smoker while milking him for excise. Your administration is therefore not the first but certainly the most entrenched as far as I can see in ratcheting up antismoking measures in concert with a rabid corpus of lobbying ‘charities’ for whom enough will never be enough. 

Ultimately, if people are not to be trusted with the choice of whether or not to smoke, after taking into account the attendant risks to their own health, why not simply fight the next election on a manifesto that embodies a policy to ban tobacco entirely? 

As a non-smoker this is a policy which would have no personal impact for me but neither would it garner any party many votes which is why it won’t be adopted. On the whole it’s safer to stick with stealth repression – the sort that nobody actually voted for – and continue to reverse the relationship between the state and the individual in which the former becomes ever more the master of the latter.

Bravo!

Directed at the party which introduced the sound bite of 'stealth taxes' to the public, I found the term stealth repression to be particularly well-drawn.

If you haven't already, why not tell your own MP that they should butt out of our choices by urging them to oppose plain packs? It's simple to do via this site, and will only take a minute of your time.

When you receive the usual boilerplate dismissive response, like The Meissen Bison, you too can use the opportunity to tell them precisely what you think about their unwelcome and disgraceful assaults on your freely chosen personal enjoyments. Whether it be plain packs, controls on what you drink, taxes on food and soft drinks, or banning e-cigs - just unload on them and enjoy doing so.

And don't ever give them the respect of believing you will be inconveniencing them, they are the ones treating the public with contempt. You are merely exercising your democratic right of objection as their Boss.

Stir Crazy

The Mirror reports on an imminent ban on smoking in prisons.

Smoking is to be banned in jails, sparking fears last night that lags may riot if they are not allowed to light up, the Sunday People has revealed. 

It will be totally outlawed at all 123 prisons in England and Wales – even outside in the exercise yards. 

Inmates will be issued with nicotine patches or electronic cigarettes instead.

Ha! The thought that e-cigs are being handed out to prisoners will send the extremist wing of the tobacco control industry mental, I reckon. Oh, and this twat too, of course.


The story continues ...

The Prison Service accepts that cigarettes must be stubbed out for health and safety reasons and to avoid compensation claims from officers claiming to be victims of passive smoking.

Perhaps someone should point the Prison Service in the direction of the Labate Case to avoid the many problematic consequences this ban may cause them.

Faced with a court case brought by the wife of an employee who was exposed to "passive smoking" during 29 years of his employment, the EU - who have themselves been pumping the second-hand smoke myth for quite a while - vigorously fought the compensation claim. The judgement in 2009 was crystal clear.

"The Tribunal rejected as manifestly unfounded the claims for compensation submitted by the applicant."

Which suggests the Prison Service should feel pretty confident about dismissing any claims from compo-chasing prison officers. Claims for injuries due to violence inflicted by some scrote deprived of his fags are a different matter entirely, of course.

Dead In The Water? Should Have Been Strangled At Birth

Great news in the Daily Mail.

Plans for a minimum price on alcohol are expected to be ditched in the face of a Cabinet revolt. 

David Cameron has insisted on pressing ahead with proposals to outlaw selling alcohol at less than 45p a unit in England and Wales. 

But sources say the idea appears ‘dead in the water’, thanks to opposition from ministers. Economists predict the plans could push the average family drinks bill up by almost £100 a year. 

One minister said such a rise would be ‘inconceivable’ when cost of living is expected to be an issue at the next election. The minister added: ‘It would be political suicide and it will have to be abandoned.’

James Forsyth at The Speccie expands on this.

This is welcome news. The policy always promised to simply drive up the price of drink, penalising all drinkers, while doing little about public drunkenness or binge drinking. 

The Mail says that the plan has fallen out of favour because of the government’s new emphasis on the cost of living. It is dawning on everyone that that hugely increasing the price of people’s pleasures at a time of falling real incomes is not a sensible political move.

Well, duh!

But the real story is a lot more than a crashingly stupid policy being ditched. What should be newsworthy is why it was even considered in the first place.

Let's boil it down to basics here, what is the point of government if not to act in the interests of the public? Nanny statists regularly talk of the 'duty' of government to 'help' people to make the 'correct' decisions. Personally, I reject that entirely but - even if taken in by it - government has a far greater duty (a real one, not one invented by vested interests) to make life less burdensome for their employers ... that is, us. This is a fundamental reason why we - and generations before us - decided that elected governments were a good thing.

Increasing the cost of living is the polar opposite of what we have historically paid them to do. Their job is to arrange the country so that the way we choose to live is made easier, not more difficult.

Tens of millions of voters consider alcohol to be an enjoyable part of their lives, so any politician who imagines it is their job to 'denormalise' it and raise the cost of living on the say-so of a handful of insane, weapons grade liars should - in a proper world - be sacked on the spot.

Minimum alcohol pricing is an almost universally despised policy, with objections being raised by the left and right of political thinking. The fact that it has reached as far as it has done just goes to show how siren voices have seduced the current political class into a position whereby they are now appalling and unfit for purpose.

'Dead in the water' is a very welcome development, but the idea should never have been allowed past the mental gestation stage before being quietly aborted.

Carry On Cruising?

Note: I am not Dick Puddlecote.

For my previous posts about smoking policies while travelling abroad, check out the Bear Tripper tag. So far, I've focussed on air travel and hotels, so this is a slight departure which I hope some might find useful.

Being out of the country for much of the year on business, it is always nice to be able to holiday travel in a more leisurely manner. For me, this means cruising and I usually book trips and take my Mother along with me for company as well as a treat which she enjoys very much.

I used to love to go on cruises, it was such a marvellous way to travel, but have found it to be a trial these days for the smoker. Or a bit of a 'carry on' you could say.

You usually need to keep up to date with the cruise line websites as their policies change quite quickly. I had a great time on the Holland America Line on a cruise to Hawaii. There were a couple of bars where you could smoke. There were a few of us who always went to one of the bars for happy hour and pre-dinner drinks. The bar staff got to know us all very well and got to know what we were drinking. One of the American chaps was actually a stunt double for a very well known character on a show in the 1970s. He was AA so the bar staff had a stash of non-alcoholic beer for him. He smoked like a chimney, was a great guy and had some fun stories to tell. His seat was the one at the bar near the window - nobody else would sit there when we came to realise that was his perch. He told us that he had found out that the bar was to go non-smoking after our cruise. I wonder how that affected profits at that particular bar. People used to come in there and complain to each other loudly about the smoking. However, there were other bars where smoking was not allowed. It really started me thinking how intolerant anti smokers are. Why didn't they go elsewhere? It was probably because I usually sat in smoking bars on the ships with other like minded folks that I hadn't really considered this. It took me back to a cruise about 15 years ago around the Caribbean. One chap was complaining that there were not enough chocolate chips in the choc chip cookies…..I put that down to some folks just wanting to complain.

I was on a trip from New York to Southampton on the QM2 and there were still smoking areas on the ship. In addition you could smoke in the cabins and on the balconies. I was holidaying with my Mother (and, as she didn't smoke, I just went out to the balcony. She was OK with sitting in the smoking areas in the bars. On one occasion a chap came into the bar and complained that there was nowhere to sit. He was pretty loud about it too. The staff offered him a seat and he proclaimed that it was in the smoking area and that he was not going to sit there and demanded a seat in non-smoking. The staff were excellent, moved some seats and sorted it out. Mum said to me that if she ever got that intolerant about anything and made such a fuss then I had full permission to chuck her overboard! We went back on the QM2 more recently for a three week trip and things had changed. For me, no more lounging on the comfy seats in the Commodore bar reading a good book with a cocktail or wine and a cig. It was all non-smoking. However, you could smoke in the Churchill Cigar Lounge which is located in the Commodore bar area. Pre dinner, I would go there and get a drink and chat with fellow passengers. Again it was a close little 'family' and the staff got to know us all. When Mum came to the bar, the staff would come in and tell me that she was there and at which table she was sat. I would then sit with her and go for a cig before we left for dinner.

The other thing that we discovered was that the disco area had a smoking area. That wasn't on the website….but I was pleased to find it was there. The only other smoking areas on the ship were a couple of huddled areas at the back on two of the decks. Still, the QM2 was better than a lot of other ships.

Another thing to be aware of if you cruise transatlantic is that you cannot buy duty free on board to smoke during the trip. If you buy duty free (tobacco or alcohol) it is delivered to your cabin the day before you disembark. On other cruises in other destinations you could buy them and smoke them while aboard.

I also started looking at one of the cruise websites which highlighted smoking friendly ships. I would like to do another cruise but the idea of having to try to find some little area where smoking was allowed was not appealing. The site was an eye opener. I found that some cruise lines had banned smoking in the cabins. Come on folks, can't you hear the 'kerching'? This, of course, meant that the smokers would be 'forced' into paying for balcony cabins. However, those with balconies complained that folks were smoking around them and it ruined their holiday. Even asking them to stop didn't work. Surprised? If someone paid for a balcony so they can smoke, they are going to smoke there. Some apparently complained to the staff and asked them to stop folks smoking. They didn't as they couldn't. Anyway, if you are in the middle of, for example, the Atlantic, and you are moving at a fair rate - how does the cig smoke then gather and go into the room of the next person from your balcony?

The outcome was predictable - cruise lines are now stopping smoking even on balconies so all that's provided is a miserable little area on deck where you can smoke. In bad weather, if there is a 'lockdown' you won't even be able to go use that! Even at that, these cruisers are not happy. They want it banned completely. I wonder if they have considered the 'chimneys' on the ships which push out all sorts of smoke. No? Of course not. It is easier to pick on the smoker.

Apparently Spanish cruise ships are the most tolerant and I also heard that RCI Serenade of the Seas had a lot of complaints (http://tinyurl.com/p68n83v) about the amount of places where smoking is allowed - that sounds like the cruise ship to go on!

Royal Caribbean Serenade of the Seas

So, my advice on any cruise you may want to take is to really investigate the smoking policy on board along with asking the line if there is going to be any change to policy. Things could change between booking and actually going on the cruise. Also look at the cruise websites and forums. These people can be vicious. It has quite put me off giving any of my money to these cruise lines as I don't want to be standing in a legitimate smoking area and have people whining at me ... and paying a fortune to do so. I am happy to do a long haul flight without smoking - but certainly not a 2 week holiday surrounded by intolerants.

I will keep an eye open for any other complaints about the amount of smoking areas on ships and plan accordingly or perhaps I will just have to go with the memories of my cruises when smoking was allowed in a couple of bars and a few more places on deck. I am never short of places to go on holiday - other destinations which don't huddle you in a windy corner outside will probably be very happy to benefit from my cash.

If you have any good (or bad) holiday experiences yourselves - not necessarily restricted to cruising - please share as I'd be very interested to read them.

Happy travels!

Link Tank 02/03

With New York's soda ban imminent, Nanny Bloomberg launched hundreds of articles!

Bloomberg's idiocy is a hark back to religious fundamentalism of ancient times ...

... As well as preventing family soda sharing and nightclub mixers

The map that is Londoners' mental GPS

Questions for unusual British political groups (includes beer, baccy and crumpets)

The 'new smoking' this week is sitting

UK government sells French beer to pay its drinks bill

If you're worried about salt, don't eat out ... anywhere!

US airlines are run by incredibly stupid people

Larry Flynt's wild life: Porn, politics and penile implants

"People aren’t abandoning the Tories, the Tories have abandoned their voters"

How you can help London Zoo map cats in the capital

Tadpoles that can now see out of their backside

Government Lobbying Government Confirmed By Alcohol Concern

Last week, fake charity Alcohol Concern released their latest accounts.

Reporting to the Charity Commission for their year up to 31st March 2012, they declared an income of £920k, over two thirds of which was consumed by salaries of £612k for 16 staff. At an average of £38,000 per annum, it would seem that being a professional bansturbator is quite a lucrative career.

But who pays for all this? Well, you taxpayers mostly do. The Department for Education chipped in £209,336, the Welsh Government £234,810, and - if you give to Comic Relief - you also helped to finance their £68,726 contribution too.

With at least 48% of Alcohol Concern's ingoings directly sourced from the taxpayer, they could arguably be termed an arms-length government body (they are often described as a 'national agency' which is unsurprising since they were formed by government in the 1980s).

In which case, these statements within their annual report would count - I humbly suggest - as a cast-iron case of government lobbying government.

Page 8

Objectives for 2012-13

In terms of our campaign and lobbying work we have two immediate priorities. Firstly is to ensure that measures in the Government's Alcohol Strategy are resourced and implemented, including a minimum price through legislation.

More damning still ...

Page 11

Our remit is to change drinking culture and the way alcohol is sold and marketed by influencing Government policy.

Well, that seems pretty unequivocal to me.

As a certain high profile politician once pointed out:

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said it was wrong that taxpayers' money was being spent on political lobbying.

Too bloody right! It's perhaps well past time this government stopped giving our taxes to Alcohol Concern, then.