Tobacco Display Ban

A tobacco display ban has come into force in my local Co-op. Was 1 March the date it was supposed to start? The shelves behind the counter had been covered over by a couple of black sliding doors with “Ask The Assistant” written on them in white. I’d thought they were supposed to go under the counter, but what do I know?

Anyway, it caught me out. I’d forgotten what brand of mulu I was currently smoking. But I remembered the name of another one I often smoke, and so asked for that instead. And the girl assistant slid back one of the doors. And there they all were, all the lovely bright packets, like a line of chorus girls when the curtain goes up. If I’d been a bit quicker off the mark, I’d have said, “Hang on. I’ve changed my mind. I’d like one of those Amber Leaf on the third shelf up instead. The blonde one with the nice legs.”

It seemed to rather defeat the point of a display ban, that as soon as the doors were slid back, everything was back on display again. It was like pornography, and momentarily glimpsing forbidden undies and nipples. And it really is pornography now.

But I suppose that when plain packaging is brought in, when the doors are slid back there’ll just be rows of identical boxes festooned with black lungs. And that might be even more pornographic.

In time, I imagine that it will extend to pretty much everything else in the supermarket. Next the alcohol will be screened off by black sliding doors. And then the confectionery. And then the fresh and processed meat. And then the peanuts and crisps. And the tea and coffee. And sugar. And salt. In the end there’s just be a display of lettuce and cabbage. And there’ll be an army of assistants, to stand in front of each sliding door. It would be like shopping in a grocer’s shop in the 1950s. You’d go in with a list of things to buy, and the man behind the counter would vanish into a back room, and come back with a tin of Spam or whatever you’d asked for. And it would defeat the point of self-service supermarkets, where the customer is in effect given the run of the back room, and the shopkeeper catches them on their way out. The supermarkets allowed shops to cut down on staff, and increase the number of customers they served. They were more efficient. And we can’t have that, can we?

Because back-to-the-1950s is probably the whole point of it. Maybe more like back-to-the-1930s. Or maybe even back-to-the-1830s. The whole idea is to make things less efficient. Like having windmills instead of power stations: people will go back to using candles. And the result will be that everything will take longer, and more work will have to be done. Instead of shopping taking 10 minutes, it’ll take an hour. And so will everything else. They’ll probably outlaw cars and washing machines too. Those were great labour-saving devices. Once they’ve been banned, people will have to go back to walking everywhere and scrubbing their clothes by hand. Which will be hard work, and good exercise, and keep them ‘fit’. And that’s the whole point of life, isn’t it? Keeping fit.

It occurred to me later that, when everything is hidden out of sight, and plain-packaged, and advertising banned, it’ll be impossible to market any new products. Because nobody will know that they exist. And, in the case of tobacco, that will mean that only the existing range of brands, with names people can still remember, will continue selling. And this grants a virtual monopoly to the owners of the existing brand names. Because competition has effectively been forbidden.

Applied across the whole economy, this will be the end of innovation. But then, who wants innovation, if your goal is to go back to the 1930s or the 1740s or the 1480s?

What they want to do is to Smash Capitalism, of course. That’s the whole point of the EU, with its rules and regulations, as far as I can see. The rules were intended to stifle the economy. Same with the smoking ban, and all its associated rules and regulations. It was always intended to drive pubs and cafes out of business. It was always intended to reduce choice, rather than increase it. And make people work harder, and become leaner and fitter, and die of the sort of things people died from in 1190. Like the Plague, or the Black Death. Proper epidemics that wiped out half the population, with cartloads of bodies and crosses daubed on every other door.

And they do want to wipe out half the population. In fact, more like 90% of it.

Back then there were only about 5 million people living in Britain. There was no tobacco, or coffee, or tea, or chocolate. Or cars or planes or washing machines or TVs or radios or computers. Or democracy. There wasn’t much choice in anything at all. But that didn’t matter.  Because they were living sustainable lifestyles. They were living The Good Life. And, much more importantly, they were fit and healthy. Apart from the plague, and the black death, of course.  And the smallpox, and the cholera, and the malaria, and the leprosy, and the arthritis, and the dying at age 30.

But then, y’see, when society has reverted to the subsistence economy of 1040, there won’t be any of these diseases. Because they were all diseases of modernity. They were all caused by smoking. Typhoid, dysentery, cholera, the lot. If you live a natural life, and eat natural foods like cabbages and onions, and drink natural drinks like well water, and you wear natural clothes like sackcloth, and natural shoes like wooden clogs, you’re all but immortal, because you’re living in harmony with nature. And you do want to live healthily and sustainably in harmony with nature, don’t you? Yes, I thought so. It’s only when you get out of harmony with nature’s rhythms, its seasons and cycles, that the trouble starts, and your chakras start playing up something rotten. And what is more rhythmic and cyclical than the motion of the planets as they go dancing round the earth? We will restore the Earth, our mother Gaia, to its rightful central place in the cosmos. And people will learn once again not to plant carrots when the Moon is in Libra, for it is forbidden. And all the books will be written in Latin, and there’ll be only one Book anyway, which nobody will be able to read, thank goodness, because it too will be kept under lock and key behind closed doors, and only copied once every 500 years.

You say your blood pressure is rising, and your heart pounds like a drum? Verily, ’tis the apoplexy, I fear. Here, let me bring leeches and hot cuppes, for we must bleede you at once of your sanguinary surfeit, and applie moustard poultices to your teary eyes.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Tobacco Display Ban

  1. Frank not to get to far off topic but this needs attention:

    Smokers are just junkies

    Related Stories •Butting out on town land
    •Get off your high horse
    Dear editor,
    As a former smoker of 75 to 125 cigarettes per day for more than 35 years, and the author of several books that have helped so many smokers quit, it should be obvious that my main concern is helping smokers.
    As such, I have to make a clear statement to each and every smoker in Orangeville that feels they have the right to smoke on publicly owned lands.
    According to a report in The Times, Vinton G. Cerf, summed rights up as follows: “There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture and freedom of conscience …”
    Where does smoking qualify in that definition?
    Every person who smokes is an addict. Everyone knows that. A smoker is no different than any other junkie, with the exception that the law permits smokers to pull out their “works” and get their “fix” in front of anyone who happens to be standing nearby.
    By so doing, smokers act to influence children and young adults by pretending what they’re doing is an acceptable and social act, rather than an unacceptable and dangerous addiction that causes a host of health issues to not only the smoker, but to others who are subjected to their second-hand smoke.
    Second-hand smoke is a proven health hazard. The proof cannot be denied.
    Merely burning a cigarette creates 4,000 to 8,000 chemicals, many toxic and/or carcinogenic.
    There’s absolutely nothing beneficial in smoking. It’s not a sociable act (it’s anti-social actually), or something that makes you cool, sexy or glamorous.
    All it does is make you a slave to a drug. Is that something you want to boast about in public — that you’re an addict?
    If anything, banning smoking in publicly owned lands helps a smoker more than a non-smoker. It just might make smokers realize it’s time to break free from addiction.
    John E. Topham, Amaranth

    http://www.orangeville.com/opinion/letters/article/1310600–smokers-are-just-junkies

  2. Frank as this seems to be the intent to kill us all off by one means or another,isnt it time we became the Taliban and fought an Insurgency against the governments. It will work I know it will,the Taliban just kill a few and the next thing the powers to be are at the surrender table and begging for terms or they just drop out of the fight altogether,well because they have no stomach for a fight they never intended to win. The governments are to busy taking over our world to worry about winning any wars elsewhere. But then again the Talibans aims are culturally the same as the EU or the UN or even the who……..they hate smoking even though they smoke………….But hey we got a holy war going on against the infidels,but hey not all infidels are the enemy they are in fact pushing our taliban agenda in their own countries…..

    Looks like the smokefree advocates have a friend in al quieda!

    Fred Thompson Explains Al Qaeda, Baffles Media
    Posted by Paul

    Published: September 9, 2007 – 10:53 PM Fred Thompson was giving a speech yesterday and he mentioned that one of the reasons the locals threw Al Qaelda out of Anbar was the prohibition on smoking. This apparently baffled one reporter by the name of Richard Sisk from the NY Daily News who thought it was a nonsensical answer.

    Fred Thompson: Al Qaeda smoking ban pushed Iraqis to U.S.
    BY RICHARD SISK (who doesn’t read enough)
    SIOUX CITY, Iowa – Freshly minted GOP White House hopeful Fred Thompson puzzled Iowans yesterday by insisting an Al Qaeda smoking ban was one reason freedom-loving Iraqis bolted to the U.S. side.

    “They said, ‘You gotta quit smoking,’” Thompson explained to a questioner asking about progress in Iraq during a town hall-style meeting.

    Thompson said the smoking ban and terror tactics Al Qaeda used to oppress women and intimidate local leaders pushed tribes in western Anbar Province to support U.S. troops.

    But Thompson’s tale of a smokers’ revolt baffled some in the audience of about 150 who came to decide whether the former Tennessee senator is ready for prime time.

    “I don’t know what that was about,” said Jim Moran, 72, who had driven from nearby McCook Lake, S.D.

    http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/09/09/thompson-explains-al-qaeda-baffles-media.php

    Tobacco Gangsterism and Terrorism Link

    Cigarette Bootlegging and Terrorism
    The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has stated that tobacco is the new commodity for terrorists. The ATF has concluded that contraband cigarette trafficking funds international money laundering and terrorism. The ATF reported that in 2002 Mohammed Hammound was sentenced to prison for using his cigarette bootlegging operation to fund terrorist activity. Mr. Hammound and nine other men, including his brother, Chawki, conspired to buy cigarettes in North Carolina, which had a 5-cent per pack tax, affixed phony tax stamps, and sold them in Michigan which had a 75-cent excise tax. Over four years, they amassed $1.5 million profit which they shared with Hezbollah –an avowed enemy of Israel and America.

    https://michaelbenjamin2012.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/tobacco-gangsterism-and-terrorism-link/

  3. Frank, you wrote, “when everything is hidden out of sight, and plain-packaged, and advertising banned, it’ll be impossible to market any new products. Because nobody will know that they exist. And, in the case of tobacco, that will mean that only the existing range of brands, with names people can still remember, will continue selling. And this grants a virtual monopoly to the owners of the existing brand names. Because competition has effectively been forbidden.”

    Which probably explains why, despite yelling about it a bit, the tobacco companies haven’t made a bigger fuss. The money they save on advertising, promotion, and product development will be immense.

    And the Antismokers will be able to rest easy because they will know, once and for all, that they have made it completely impossible for the tobacco companies (or anyone else for that matter) to every make and market a “safer cigarette”!

    Isn’t that nice of them now?

    - MJM

  4. Funny thing that all the stories of the quitters begin like this:

    ‘ I smoked 30,40,50 and evenmore cigarettes per day.Ahh I feel different now’

    Yes bloody moron,haven’t you thought to reduce your daily intake? U do that one for every other lifestyle choice in your life,do it for smoking as well!!

    As for the subject that you highlighted Frank,people still don’t realise that we are going ‘back to the future’!

    Wait and see when the next wave of prohibition comes which will include alcohol and fast food,then people will begin to doubt en masse all the crappy junk science

    And they will try to make you stop using your car,instead using a bicycle ,to save the environment ofcourse !!! Suddenly bicycle and green tea and non smoking have become fashionable!!!

  5. @ Michael : even with the MSA one of the critics that were raised was the fact that effectively it created an oligopoly,thereby not allowing someone else entering the tobacco market

    I have read some conspiracy theories, (i e that Big Tobacco is effectively running the antitobacco show) but eventually you are beginning to wonder if the antis work for the Big Tobacco…

  6. legiron says:

    Well, they’ve already pushed spelling back to pre- Dr. Johnson days. It can only be a matter of time before they expect us to bash our clothes against the rocks in the river.

    Someone, however, might well have dropped some seeds along that riverbank by then. So it’s not going to be a total loss.

    I hadn’t thought about the riverbank! Tomorrow I might go for a little wander through local nature.

  7. Ahh but enter the black market cigarettes………..The day may come when bootleg is the prefered product over legal smokes and quite possibly even the market share like in parts of canada now.

  8. cherie79 says:

    In Dublin a couple of years ago I went to get some cigarettes at a supermarket and couldn’t see any. I was told they were not on display but the guy brought out this card with miniture packet fronts on it to show me what they sold. I have never seen that anywhere else, it all seems so stupid, Have the courage of their ‘convictions’ and ban it therefore making tobacco as available as other illegal drugs and forego the taxes, just think how virtuous they can feel. On that topic there is no one as fanatical as a ‘reformed’ smoker, I think it is frustration that they can’t have a cigarette! not all of course, I know quite a few that have given up but are perfectly fine about others smoking. I think it is like alcoholics who give up, they turn to something else, often religion, and some ex smokers turn to anti-smoking fanaticism. I would vote for anyone who would just leave me alone.

    • legiron says:

      I think it depends on why they gave up. Those who stopped because they wanted to, or because they just weren’t interested any more, are fine with others smoking. They don;t go through any withdrawal usually, they just stop the same way I stopped trainspotting when I was no longer a teenager.

      It’s the ones who were pushed into it or who felt they ‘had to’ stop that turn into born-again non-smoker Puritans. It’s a case of ‘I still want it and I can’t have it, so you can’t have it either’.

      Petty spite, in other words. There’s nothing else left in their lives.

  9. junican says:

    Here is the truth (a bit slat at).

    There is no such thing as ‘smuggling’. It is a mental construct by bosses.

    There is no such thing as ‘counterfeit’ tobacco – either tobacco is tobacco or it is not.

    There are no such things as ‘duties’. Any such ‘charge’ is theft.

    There is no such thing as: an honest politician; a caring doctor; a dutiful local authority employee; an intelligent policeman; a manager with managerial discretion; a courageous clergyman; a human employee of ASH ET AL.

    Thus are we afflicted.

  10. Barry Homan says:

    I still say we need a National Choke-Out Day. Tired of hearing it? Maybe, but it occurs to me Frank, do you want to keep on writing this blog for the next ten years? There are those of us, like you, who are organised, articulate, and can carry a message – but those messages aren’t going beyond the small audience hovering in front of the screens, clinging to every word you type. In a way it all seems a bit ludicrous, where is the action?

    The glorious return to the good ol days, when is it coming? The enemy is winning the war without firing a single shot. A demonstration like I prescribed would get attention, and things would start happening.

    Or we could stick to the current plan for another ten years, like we’ve done for the last ten years – lots of writing and reading, a wealth of words, but NO action. If I could, I’d grab a microphone like George VI and make my speech – call upon my people at home and my people across the seas – but we have a real problem with that it seems: we lack the courage, confidence, and conviction to take that crucial step.

    However, unlike George, we are not one person. We are many. We have an advantage in numbers, but it seems everyone is waiting for the other person to do something.

    Time for the next step.

    • nisakiman says:

      “…but those messages aren’t going beyond the small audience hovering in front of the screens…”

      This is true, but more and more people are becoming aware of these blogs. Frank’s traffic has increased substantially over the last year, he tells us, and that creates a ripple effect.

      If you look at the hit rate of blogs like “Watts up with That” or James Delingpole’s blog, it is massive. A few years ago, they were blogs like this, known only to a few “deniers”. Now they are mainstream, and have, I’m sure, contributed hugely to the general public’s questioning of the whole AGW orthodoxy.

      Whenever I comment in the comments section of the MSM (if the subject refers to smoking), I try to link to sites like this one, and VGIF etc, so as to draw more ordinary smokers (who have been browbeaten into accepting all the antismoking crap) to sites that reject the “science” for the garbage it is. Knowledge is power.

    • Frank Davis says:

      But since they seem to want to choke the economy, perhaps a National Choke-Out Day would play perfectly into their hands?

      And I don’t want to write this blog. It’s not a labour of love. It’s more that I’m simply too angry to stop myself writing it.

      And there isn’t any Plan. There never has been a Plan. And I’m not sure that there needs to be a Plan. I’m not an Organisation Man. I am content to let things evolve in their own way down their own paths. “Let It Happen” could almost be my motto. I’ll try and write more about this sometime.

      • cherie79 says:

        Is there any way you could get your post about the wider cost of the smoking ban into the mainstream? it really made me think, I knew I had virtually stopped going to pubs and restuarants but you made me realise how little I was spending in other ways by not stopping in town or buying clothes etc. That might make people think and realise it is not just pubs and clubs that are affected. I went into town yesterday, usually have coffee if it is dry but yesterday it was raining so straight home as nowhere to have a coffee and cigarette so another few pounds lost.

  11. waltc says:

    Just here to say that your blog today, Frank, was f’ing brilliant. Funny, apt, and all too true.

    Then, too, keep in mind: They’ve already given us toilets that don’t flush, showers that don’t shower, detergents that don’t wash, gasoline with additives that grossly pollute the ground water, ethanol that’s raised the cost of food world-wide, lightbulbs the glow eerily and drearily before they pop and need a Hazmat suit to dispose of and… give me three minutes and I’ll think of something else.

  12. pubcurmudgeon says:

    Absolutely – banning advertising, product displays, even distinctive pack designs, just serves to ossify the market in the form it existed in prior to the bans.

    I was under the impression that they could also display a price list in small, plain type.

    • manwiddicombe says:

      I think they’re allowed to have a list but haven’t organised it yet. I went to buy some fags yesterday from my local Tesco (they too have covered up early) only to be told they no longer stock my preferred brand. When I asked what brands they had the assistant looked at me completely blankly as if no-one had ever asked that question before.

      I *may* have had 5 minutes of fun getting her to open every door …….

    • richwhite08 says:

      My local Asda has a price list. It’s a fine idea, but there are a few problems:
      1) The font is incredibly small. By ‘incredibly small’ i mean i have 20/20 vision and i need to get close to see it, i have no idea how old people will be able to read it.
      2) It’s at the till. So people will be queuing without knowing what’s available, then spend a while reading the list and deciding what they want.
      3) It isn’t indicative of current stock. Whereas before you could see from the end of the queue if your preferred brand was in, now you can’t.

      So the list is allowed and it’s all well and good in theory, but all this display ban is going to do is annoy staff and create huge queues for the kiosk.

      • nisakiman says:

        “…all this display ban is going to do is annoy staff and create huge queues for the kiosk.”

        I think that’s the general idea. All part of the denormalisation process.

  13. Rose says:

    It strikes me that having previously tampered with the nicotine and “tar” content,allowed the inclusion of additives, redesigned the structure of a cigarette with their insistance on FSC and “lights”, taken control over the packet design using the force of law and continuing to amend it at will, and now intending to take total control over the means of sale for stockists and manufacturers alike, while presumably making far more money than the original manufacturers of the product – it would appear that the once mighty tobacco companies are now little more than subcontractors.

    • mikef317 says:

      Rose, 3/6 at 10:31 AM:

      The screwballs haven’t believed in reduced “tar” and nicotine for about a decade. Lowering T / N levels was just another sinister plot by the evil tobacco companies.

      2010 Surgeon General’s report, Chapter 2, page 20, edited, my emphasis: “At the time the adverse effects of smoking were being recognized, the tobacco industry developed cigarettes with low… yields of tar and nicotine, and public health authorities encouraged consumers to select them. Unfortunately, it took public health researchers and federal authorities many years to discover what the tobacco industry knew much earlier: the health benefits of reductions of tar and nicotine intakes were negligible… In 2001, an NCI report concluded: ‘There is no convincing evidence that changes in cigarette design between 1950 and the mid 1980s have resulted in an important decrease in the disease burden caused by cigarette use either for smokers as a group or for the entire population.’ Thus, by the twenty-first century, it was apparent that five decades of evolving cigarette design had not reduced overall disease risk among smokers, and new designs were used by the tobacco industry as a tool to undermine prevention and cessation efforts.”

      And, yes, tobacco companies are little more than “subcontractors.”

      • mikef317 says:

        Underline didn’t work. I’m sure you get the important points.

        • mikef317 says:

          Don’t know if I’ve posted this on Frank’s blog before, but re “tar” (fine particulate matter) in cigarette smoke….

          William M. Briggs has several excellent blog posts about dust (fine particulate matter) as it relates to alleged deaths caused by air pollution.

          http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?s=Fine+Particulate There are multiple posts with the most recent on top; anyone interested should start with the 9/13/11 item and work upward.

        • Rose says:

          Anti- tobacco don’t seem to know much about their own history, at least the tobacco companies keep records.

          The saga much reduced.

          “October 23, 1974 MEMORANDUM President Ford’s letter to Jonathan Rhoads, October 18, 1974, is capable of being misunderstood. The UPI story the same day increased the chances, by portraying it as a Presidential initiative against the tobacco industry. (E.g., “President Ford today expressed interest in the possibility of regulating by law the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes. He asked the National Cancer Advisory Board to provide for him by Dec. 1 ‘scientific advice on this important matter of possible concern.”‘)

          What was, in fact, a Presidential slap on the wrist to the NCAB for an unsubstantiated recommendation, is being perceived as a White House move against the tobacco industry. This was the reaction of the antismoking clique, and initially of the tobacco industry. The story was largely ignored by the press, however, but depressed Phillip Morris stock by $100 million….”

          “This “hanging jury” could easily manipulate the President into a box he would have to explain his way out of to his basic conservative, business and anti-regulatory constituency”

          Long-term effect:
          “The tobacco industry is becoming increasingly disturbed by industries which are using smoking as a cover-up for their problems in complying with the Clean Air Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
          Tobacco executives have noted efforts by the oil industry, the automobile industry and others to hide their pollution behind a tobacco smoke screen.”

          Adding to their suspicion is foot dragging of the National Cancer Advisory Board in acting on environmental and occupational cancer, which some scientists and environmental activists regard as ignored and “unindicted co-conspirators” in the case against cancer.
          The NCAB is much more vigorous in its almost single-minded persecution of smoking.

          Precedent effect: Yielding to pressure from the NCAB in regulating cigarettes will open a Pandora’s Box.”
          http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIMN0141199-1201.html

          “Prior to 1970, the use of additives in tobacco products was prohibited without special permission from the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, under Section 176 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. This permission was given only within very strict limits and mainly in respect of flavourings in tobacco products other than cigarettes. The prohibition extended to the importation of tobacco products containing additives as well as a ban on the production of cigarettes with additives for export.”

          “The rise of additives in tobacco products is intimately linked with the strategy to reduce tar yields. The amount of tar and nicotine in smoke is measured by a standard smoking machine in which the cigarette is smoked with a fixed puff volume and frequency with tar and nicotine residues collected on a filter and weighed.

          Governments have insisted on reducing tar levels as measured by this approach, hoping that this would reduce tar exposure to smokers — and therefore lead to reduced harm.”
          http://old.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/additives.html (passworded now)

          Supreme Court Ruling is Victory for Consumers Deceived by Tobacco Companies About Light Cigarettes

          “Washington, DC – The U.S. Supreme Court today delivered an important victory for consumers by ruling that a class-action lawsuit against Philip Morris alleging the fraudulent marketing and sale of “light” cigarettes can be heard in state court, in this case in Arkansas.
          In overturning a lower court ruling, the Court unanimously rejected Philip Morris’ argument that such cases should only be heard in federal court because they claimed that tobacco companies acted as “officers” of the United States government in their testing and marketing of light cigarettes.

          Only a tobacco company would have the gall to argue that its deceptive practices are government-sanctioned acts.”
          http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/id_1000

          The Lessons from History: Scientists Ideas About How to Make Safer Cigarettes Can Severely Backfire

          “In 1974, the National Cancer Advisory Board – an advisory committee of the National Cancer Institute – made a detailed set of recommendations regarding the regulation of cigarettes. The recommendations called for federal regulation of the tar and nicotine deliveries of cigarettes, which would be administered by a federal agency. The agency would require that cigarette companies gradually reduce the tar and nicotine levels of cigarettes from the 1973 averages of 19.2 mg tar and 1.3 mg nicotine.”

          “Here are the recommendations put forward by the National Cancer Advisory Board:

          “1. A Government agency should be empowered to set maximum cigarette levels of tar and nicotine that will become progressively lower than the 1973 averages of 19.2 milligrams and 1.3 milligrams respectively. Such decreases should be undertaken slowly enough to insure that no important increase in the number of cigarettes consumed does occur. These actions should insure that a range of cigarettes including some with very low tar and nicotine contents continue to be available.”

          “2. Since smoking has a severe impact on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, the Government agency empowered to regulate maximum emission of undesirable smoke components should get appropriate technical advice from the National Heart and Lung Institute.”

          “3. Pending the accomplishment of the foregoing recommendations through changes in the existing law, the President of the United States might consider making a public personal appeal to the tobacco and cigarette industry for voluntary and rapid efforts towards preferential marketing of low tar and low nicotine cigarettes, and towards reduction of other smoke components that may be recognized as hazardous.”
          http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/05/lessons-from-history-scientists-ideas.html

  14. garyk30 says:

    Bright colors/advertising can not be proved, in court, to ’cause’ ppeople/kids to start smoking.
    Nor,in court, can it be proved that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine.

    http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html#Preliminaries
    OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
    [2005] CSOH 69
    OPINION OF LORD NIMMO SMITH

    in the cause

    MRS MARGARET McTEAR
    Pursuer;
    against
    IMPERIAL TOBACCO LIMITED
    Defenders

    PART IX: CONCLUSIONS AND RESULT

    Conclusions

    [9.1] I now set out my main conclusions, which should be read in conjunction with the passages of discussion to which cross-references are given.

    [9.3] Mr McTear started smoking no earlier than 1964. I am satisfied that advertising had nothing to do with his reasons for starting to smoke.(para.[4.226]).

    [6.208]). The averment that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine is not proved.

  15. No doubt this is run the same way their junk heart attack studies are done………….

    Drop in pregnancy complications after smoking ban
    Number of babies born pre-term fell by 10% in Scotland after ban brought in nearly six years ago.

    Complications in pregnancy have fallen as a result of the ban on smoking in public places, according to a new study.
    Researchers found the ban, introduced almost six years ago, has led to a drop in the number of babies being born before they reach full term.
    It has also reduced the number of infants being born underweight.
    Legislation outlawing smoking in enclosed public places, such as pubs and restaurants, came into force in Scotland on March 26, 2006.
    The research team, led by Professor Jill Pell of the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Health and Wellbeing, looked at more than 700,000 single-baby births before and after the introduction of the ban.
    The number of mothers who smoked fell from 25.4% to 18.8% after the new law was brought in, researchers discovered.
    Experts further found there was a drop of more than 10% in the overall number of babies born “pre-term”, which is defined as delivery before 37 weeks’ gestation.
    There was also a 5% drop in the number of infants born under the expected weight, and a fall of 8% in babies born “very small for gestational size”.
    Dr Pell said the research highlighted the positive health benefits which can stem from tobacco control legislation.
    She said: “These findings add to the growing evidence of the wide-ranging health benefits of smoke-free legislation and support the adoption of such legislation in other countries which have yet to implement smoking bans.
    “These reductions occurred both in mothers who smoked and those who had never smoked.
    “While survival rates for pre-term deliveries have improved over the years, infants are still at risk of developing long-term health problems so any intervention that can reduce the risk of pre-term delivery has the potential to produce important public health benefits.
    “The potential for tobacco control legislation to have a positive effect on health is becoming increasingly clear.”
    Researchers looked at data for babies born between January 1996 and December 2009, taken from the Scottish Morbidity Record, which collected information on all women discharged from Scottish maternity hospitals.
    The research paper, funded by the Chief Scientist Office, is published in the online journal Public Library of Science Medicine (PLoS).

    http://news.stv.tv/scotland/299915-drop-in-pregnancy-complications-after-smoking-ban/

    • beobrigitte says:

      A very interesting subject. And a lot of expert lies.
      Complications in pregnancy have fallen as a result of the ban on smoking in public places, according to a new study.
      Really???????????

      Would these “experts” (tobacco controlled paid puppets) explain why A NUMBER of us were supposed to endure induced labour (I cannot recommend it; happened 3 times to me!) well before full term due to complications arising from the estimated weight and size of the baby with the words of the obstetrician: “If you go full term you will not be able to deliver this baby”?
      I’m all ears! And, yes , gestational diabetes was excluded.

  16. It appears they pulled the pregnancy complication story……the link takes you back to the front page of the paper now even though the stories listed in the lower corner of the page.

  17. beobrigitte says:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/allanmassie/100061232/the-bbc-is-talking-nonsense-everyone-knew-smoking-was-bad-for-you-in-1962-we-just-didnt-care/

    btw – I disagree in one part with the writer: smoking isn’t bad. I – and millions of other smokers on this planet are still happily alive and kickin’.

  18. smokervoter says:

    This is 5-star political satire here Frank. Love the way you slyly keep taking the reader further and further back in time. It’s completely pertinent and absorbing. It should be picked up on by the High Influence media, if they had any brains at all.

    Politicians, the actual persons who vote tobacco display bans and Kyoto Protocols into being, read stuff published at The Huffington Post, New York Times, BBC News, The Guardian,The Wall Street Journal, and FoxNews.com.

    Their staff might be following Slate Magazine, NewsMax, Infowars, Salon.com, WorldNetDaily, Daily Kos, Townhall.com, or the National Review. This piece belongs at any of these prestigious outlets.

    Rush Limbaugh (who’s been in some hot water lately) should be made aware of your stuff and on occasion read from it verbatim to his vast audience. I’ve sent links to a few of your posts to him before. I can’t help but think that if he’d done the real conservative right thing and gotten behind Ron Paul’s campaign, it would be a two man Romney and Paul race by now. He’s very influential, the Reformed Smoker in Chief mentioned him at his press conference today. From the sound of it I guess we can count out reformed smoker Ian Collins from bookmarking your blog and quoting it on air.

    On the Obama front, bringing this funny piece of writing to the attention of progressive eyeballs might even be constructive although I doubt it, they tend to lack much of a sense of humor. Snideness maybe, but real humor I’m afraid not. They would sneeringly turn this all around and make you the retrograde man, desirous of returning us all to the Dark Ages of smoky bars, clinking martini glasses and Passive Smoking Trauma.

    And I don’t want to write this blog. It’s not a labour of love. It’s more that I’m simply too angry to stop myself writing it.

    That is fairly obvious by the tone of your writing. The fact is you just so happen to be a very gifted and funny writer. And smoking bans are just a component part of a larger out-of-control, noisy contraption that is rolling down the street damaging everyones private property as it moves. And it’s creating a subtly growing throng of angry, fist-thrusting home dwellers in its path. Not all of them write that well however.

    There’s a proud legacy of great writers who also happen to smoke. Eric Arthur Blair, Samuel Clemens and H.K. Hillman come to mind here. It could be attributed to the well-documented boost to mental acuity furnished by the baccy. Or given the recurring history of authoritarian anti-tobacco/anti-fun crusades and the leading edge awareness of smokers, maybe it’s no more than that.

  19. “It would be like shopping in a grocer’s shop in the 1950s. You’d go in with a list of things to buy, and the man behind the counter would vanish into a back room, and come back with a tin of Spam or whatever you’d asked for. “

    Ah, the memories of Home & Colonial come flooding back! Loose tea, bacon slicers, and bring your own milk jug.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s