Link Tank 28/02

It's been a strange week.

Gripes over cannabis have all been seen before

In defence of student rugby 'lads'

Diet research built on a house of cards

‘Cover up that t-shirt, or get out!’

Crack-smoking former Mayor Rob Ford selling memorabilia on eBay (pic)

EU rules lawnmowers and mobility scooters need motor insurance

Coffee intake linked to reduced risk of MS

China 'porn inspector' jobs get thousands of applicants

Beer: Solving life's conundrums, one pint at a time

An Italian fish tale

The Framework Convention On Cake Control?

Today is the tenth anniversary of the formation of the tobacco control industry's preferred method of undemocratic censorship and destruction of freedom of choice, the FCTC.

Congratulations to them for being entirely unelected yet able to demand policies which have massively boosted tobacco industry share prices, while simultaneously imposing laws which restrict the liberty of people and private businesses to make their own decisions in life unhindered. And all while descending into a neurotic totalitarian pit of opaque debate, opulent self-enrichment, suppression of the press and trampling of free speech that would turn any self-respecting fascist green with envy.

This brilliant strategy hasn't gone unnoticed by those who are equally eager to boss us around without the inconvenience of having to seek election.

The health arm of the United Nations does not want companies advertising cake, ice cream, or ice pops to children. 

The World Health Organization (WHO) developed a “European nutrient profile” to be used by countries in order to ban the marketing of desserts.

Erm, but children like cake, ice cream and desserts. It's what children do.

Banned without exception are pastries, croissants, cookies, sponge cakes, wafers, fruit pies, sweet buns, chocolate covered biscuits, cake mixes, and batters. 

The list goes on: “Chocolate and other products containing cocoa; white chocolate; jelly, sweets and boiled sweets; chewing gum and bubble gum; caramels; liquorice sweets; spreadable chocolate and other sweet sandwich toppings; nut spreads, including peanut butter; cereal, granola and muesli bars; marzipan.” 

Advertising for ice cream, frozen yogurt, ice pops, sorbets, and energy drinks would also be banned.

Well, that's ITV bankrupt in a week then.

“The list is not exhaustive and may be added to when used nationally,” the report said.

Not exhaustive? There's not a lot left! Besides, shouldn't it be parents who decide what kids eat and, indeed, watch on TV? It's a radical idea, I know, but just thought I'd put it out there..

But it's OK, there's nothing to see here. Yes, OK, tobacco control only wanted banning of tobacco advertising at first but are now onto plain packaging and eradication of product use in public in case a child sees it, but I'm sure there's no precedent. It's not like it's the same organisation using the same methods or anything.

Oh, hold on.

An Outbreak Of Common Sense In Pall Mall

Tuesday night saw a final event in the Hands Off Our Packs campaign entitled Stop The Nonsense which, as you'd expect, I trotted up to London for.

Now, I've driven past the venue - the Institute of Directors building in Pall Mall - quite often, but never knew it was so opulent inside (as always, click to enlarge all pics).

Of course, as a director of a company myself, I had to enquire what the cost was to be a member and all I'll say is that it would be twice as expensive to buy a season ticket at White Hart Lane. I'd be tempted to join but apparently using e-cigs is banned inside - I say apparently because I only know after others told me they had politely been approached and asked to stop, whereas I was left alone throughout. Lucky me, eh?

Anyway, that's all by the by. I arrived fairly early and straightaway met long time reader here - and occasional contributor - Chris Oakley. We were so deep in conversation that when I next looked up, the room had filled out impressively in a very short space of time.

I'd say there were around 200 or so there which is an impressive turnout seeing as it was announced less than two weeks previously, it seems the pernicious nature of stealing a legal industry's intellectual property on a dubious pretext mobilises right-minded people who, like readers here, are on the side of the angels.

Not knowing what to expect, I found the tone of the evening to be more celebratory than any other emotion, probably because the campaign against plain packaging has had a lot of success. It brilliantly exposed the most corrupt and mendacious state-funded lobbying we've ever seen from the tobacco control industry - quite an achievement considering their grubby track record - which only succeeded thanks to the intellectual vacuity of politicians in believing junk science, whilst ignoring an overwhelming majority of the public who objected, and handing a profit boost to criminal gangs.

This is something Simon Clark touched upon in the first speech as he wondered aloud why David Cameron* had "rolled over to Labour", before informing those in attendance who weren't aware that the second 'public' consultation - released after the decision had been taken to proceed - had resulted in 99% of responses being in opposition.

His associate during the campaign, Angela Harbutt, was next up, with what will no doubt turn out to be a vain plea (aimed at vain politicians, how apt) for MPs to "stick to the facts, not fiction, vote no, stop the nonsense".

Further speeches followed from Emily Barley, who said she didn't join the Conservative party for this kind of nanny state bullshit, and John O'Connell of the Taxpayers Alliance who pointed out that choosing to smoke means you choose to pay the accompanying taxes ... but that the costs of plain packaging in loss of duty, increased Border Force wages, and possible billion pound compensation, will cost all taxpayers whether they like it or not. Rory Broomfield of the Freedom Association also chipped in to ask why on Earth the government was interfering in freedom of speech - which packaging arguably is - and gold-plating EU regulations when all main parties are telling us that they'd like less regulation from Europe, not more.

Dr Madsen Pirie was on the money in calling the tobacco control "a faith industry, not based on evidence", and illustrated it by highlighting that a majority of global anti-smoking professionals "say e-cigs lead kids to smoking but can they name three kids who have? No they can't, it's a faith", before Moral Maze's Claire Fox wondered why her nephew had seen dozens of washing up liquid commercials but had never been tempted to robotically wash the dishes in an ad-induced stupor (on Twitter, typically humourless anti-smokers seized on this as not being an evidence-based argument ... no, I'm not kidding).

A statement by former criminal justice minister Damian Green was also read out (the whole text here) where he described plain packs as "a dangerous proposal" which "would make life easier for criminal gangs", while my esteemed ally in this enlightened corner of the internet, Chris Snowdon, stated the obvious - "There is no doubt that this will be studied by those who want to do the same with alcohol, food and sugar" (more on that here tomorrow, stay tuned).

Lastly came a cracker of a speech by Mark Littlewood which I asked those filming on the night to just bung up on YouTube when they had time. Calling plain packaging laws "risible, and ridiculous", he was incredulous that while we have Russian planes flying over Cornwall, a £100bn deficit, Greece causing ructions in the Eurozone and a general election in our imminent future, "the last act of this government is to regulate colour schemes".

As a last comment on a pointless policy, bullied through after a three year campaign backed by disingenuous people using morally bankrupt and overt lying in order to fill their pockets with our taxes, it couldn't have been more apposite.

And when the quickfire speeches finished, the crowd of liberty loving people be like ...

These were just very brief highlights, believe me, so if you weren't there you missed a good evening of plain speaking and rare good sense. There are sure to be plenty more though because - as we well know - the tobacco control and public health beasts need constant feeding at the tax receipts trough and will never stop while they have mortgages and Mercedes Benzes to pay for. We have seen this in the past couple of weeks as they have already seamlessly moved into campaigning for outdoor smoking bans.

Still, I suppose it provides an endless supply of material for your humble 'tabloid junk' host to write about, eh?

UPDATE: Simon Clark has helpfully published a sound file of Mark Littlewood's speech. Go have a listen here.

*An interesting note on David Cameron and his view of plain packs. He came out with a quip during yesterday's PMQs which went something like this - "Now we are committed to plain paper packaging of cigarettes, it will give more space for the opposition to write their policies on". Yep, it looks like David Cameron doesn't have a first clue about the policy he is legislating on! 

Dick Out And About: A Test For Democracy

I've written a piece for Totally Wicked's Article 20 legal challenge site, pointing out that the legal system is designed to hold politicians to account when they fail the public ... which is what they've done with much of the EU Tobacco Products Directive.

You can read it here if you so wish. Do also have a look round the rest of the site and sign in support if you haven't already.

Tobacco Control: Fascism's Trojan Horse

Don't lawfully confront the government if you're Irish, will you? Because they don't like that sort of thing.

Don't work for tobacco firms, lawyers urged 

CHILDREN'S Minister James Reilly has said it is not appropriate for legal firm Arthur Cox to represent tobacco firms and state agencies. 

Dr Reilly is currently reviewing the relationship between the State's child and family agency Tulsa and the firm of solicitors representing Japan Tobacco International (JTI), which is threatening legal action against the Government if it introduces plain packaging for cigarettes. 

"I fail to see how we send the right message by employing legal firms that are prepared to represent the tobacco industry, whose history in this area is quite appalling, to be quite frank. 

"Their inability to come out and tell the truth time after time has been quite shocking ..."

Unlike Dr Reilly the eejit liar, of course.

Dr Reilly called on all legal firms to come out and say they would not represent tobacco interests.

This is an astounding thing for any politician to say, it's like lessons of history have completely passed him by.

To even suggest that a perfectly legitimate, taxpaying industry should be denied any and all legal representation by order of the state - and simply because it disagrees with the state - is the very definition of fascism. But to do so by way of implied threats that legal firms will be excluded from government contracts if they include tobacco companies as their clients just makes it even more disgusting.

This is the evil place that tobacco control and its hideous acolytes inhabit. They go through their self-enriching lives viewing everything through the prism of hatred of tobacco, while not recognising the potentially disastrous precedents they are setting. Blacklisting lawyers for representing companies exercising their right - in a supposedly civilised free country - to hold politicians to account through the impartial legal system surely has to be a new low.

This is why I despise tobacco controllers. If they were decent people they'd condemn this fundamental abuse of our long-held adherence to democracy and justice, but they won't. They'll just allow Reilly - who also despises e-cigs remember - and his fascist Trojan Horse to go unchallenged.

I am 100% confident I won't be proven wrong.

A Polite Fiction Debunked By E-Cigs

For a Sunday evening dose of good sense, may I direct your attention to an article in the Oregonian by Jacob Grier on the subject of e-cigs bans. Because he articulates very well why I love the advent of vaping for its unerring ability to expose the tobacco control industry as a manipulative and knowingly mendacious movement.

Many of us doubted that the evidence [behind smoking bans] really mattered. As I wrote in The Oregonian/OregonLive at the time, "Protecting workers is simply the polite fiction by which nonsmokers have imposed their will on an increasingly unpopular minority." 

We suspected this, but how could we prove it? What if there were a device that looked like a cigarette and mimicked the effects of smoking, yet emitted a mostly harmless vapor instead of tobacco smoke? If authorities tried to ban that too, without bothering to establish that it endangered anyone, then our suspicions would be vindicated. 

That device exists. It's called an e-cigarette. And sure enough, the Multnomah Board of County Commissioners is voting on whether to ban its use indoors. The Legislature, too, may expand the state's smoking ban to cover vaping. 

The evidence that e-cigarettes cause significant harm to users, much less to bystanders, is weak to non-existent. The county's case against them is that they sort of look like smoking. Vaping indoors, says the Board of Health for Multnomah County, "threatens to undermine compliance with smoking regulations and reverse the progress that has been made in establishing a social norm that smoking is not permitted in public places and places of employment." 

Never mind whether any real person has ever been confused by this. Ask instead why merely keeping up appearances is a matter for the law. If simulated smoking must be banned in bars just to send a healthy message, then my God, think of all the actual drinking going on!

Yep, it's never been about health.

For those of us old enough to remember when smoking ban advocates cited real evidence, the current movement to ban vaping confirms what we suspected all along: That this isn't about protecting people, it's about controlling them, and that empirical research is relevant only to the extent that it helps the political cause. 

The state and county should proceed with sensible plans to restrict sales of e-cigarettes to minors. But we should treat adults as adults, upholding the liberal principle that how they live is up to them, so long as they are not credibly harming others. If the worst that health officials can say about e-cigarettes is that they don't like the way they look, then they ought to learn the public virtue of minding their own business.

And politicians should start ignoring the transparently policy-led bullshit the public health industry increasingly pretends is 'science' or 'evidence'.

Go read Jacob's whole article here. Note too the comments where the usual hideous anti-social types in society - to whom the tobacco control industry panders for their very existence - throw tantrums because someone dares to point out that governments shouldn't exist to pass laws giving the intolerant, bigoted and hateful the world on a stick.

Link Tank 21/02

Take your pick.

The tyranny of health Down Under

Sin taxes, public health and public opinion

Green Party: The first 100 days

The Israeli relaxed attitude to allowing kids out on their own

Britain could teach the world how not to run a railway

#Vaping 2015 - The year of the Advocate?

Australia bans traditional Pacific Islands drink

Burger King launches UK home deliveries (pic)

Swedish Fanny banned by Nectar

Scots turned to porn on referendum night

Caffeine and nicotine-protected bees