I was a bit surprised that the Queen’s Speech made no mention of so-called “plain packaging”.
Perhaps it had something to do with this:
Rebel Conservative MPs have accused their own party of running a nanny state Government over plans to bring in plain packaging for tobacco.
With the proposals subject to a ‘short, final’ consultation announced by health minister Jane Ellison in April, MPs are asking retailers to get involved in their campaign.
As many as 50 Conservative backbenchers are understood to be against plain tobacco packaging, including Shipley MP Philip Davies, who advised retailers to tell their MP they would not vote for anyone supporting the proposals.
He told Retail Express: “It’s a complete triumph for the nanny state and it’s completely ridiculous. It won’t make any difference at all to smoking levels.
“The minister is a complete prisoner of ASH and does whatever it says she should do. We’ve already got a display ban so what need is there for plain packaging as well? Whoever proposed plain packaging has obviously never worked on a cigarette kiosk before.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative MP for North East Somerset, said: “The evidence simply isn’t there. The Government has drawn a conclusion based on uncertain studies and that seems a weak basis for an argument.
“Without branding people may be inclined to buy illicit cigarettes from under the counter. With plain packaging you increase the risk to the consumer, you damage business and you fail to treat people like responsible adults.”
And tomorrow is the Newark by-election, which the Conservatives look set to win, unfortunately:
David Cameron is on course to easily win the Newark byelection on Thursday, according to a new poll.
A survey by Conservative peer and pollster Lord Ashcroft puts the Tories on 42 per cent, 15 points ahead of second-placed Ukip on 27 per cent – with Labour trailing in third on 20 per cent.
The results emerged as the Prime Minister visited Newark for a fourth time in the campaign, telling voters he understood ‘temptations’ to vote for other parties.
The UKIP vote looks set to be strong, perhaps because their candidate is Roger Helmer (below), who is also one of the region’s MEPs, and who quit the Conservative party for UKIP in 2012.
Speaking of packaging, Roger Helmer was, rather interestingly, the only other national politician than Nigel Farage to show up at Stony Stratford in 2011. While most people were wearing jeans, he arrived impeccably (but slightly incongruously) dressed in tweed plus-fours. He gave a little speech in which he said that he didn’t smoke, but if a street smoking ban was introduced, he’d be marching on the streets beside us.
Which set me wondering whether he would arrive at the march wearing plus-fours, with a walking stick and a Labrador.
Dwelling on it again years later, I thought he’d more likely arrive on horseback, in full armour, swinging a battle-axe beneath the flag of St George, to lead the charge up Stony Stratford High Street against the massed battalions of screeching, hissing, hand-waving antismokers.
I hope he does well tomorrow. He was, after all, on our side.
Frank Davis 
Macau gets 80% of its government funding from gambling……………It may well be the first government that smokefree adovcates ever put into total bankruptcy!
Impact of new smoking rules on premium gaming still unclear
http://www.ggrasia.com/impact-of-new-smoking-rules-on-premium-gaming-still-unclear/
Donegal pubs dominate list of smoke ban breaches
Market Bar on Dublin’s Fade St also fined
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/donegal-pubs-dominate-list-of-smoke-ban-breaches-1.1820314
It appears alls not smokefree and happy in Ireland after all…….
The Market Bar on Dublin’s Fade Street has been named on a list of 11 premises in breach of the smoking ban in the first three months of this year.
The HSE published the list today saying, in general, compliance with the Public Health (Tobacco) Act, which banned smoking in the workplace including pubs, had been high since its introduction 10 years ago.
“However, significant problems still remain in relation to smoking in the work place”, it said.
The Market Bar, run by Mercroft Taverns Ltd, was fined €250 for one breach of the act and €500 for another, plus €1,250 for costs.
Mercroft Taverns pleaded guilty to the offences when it appeared in court in March.
A further seven premises were in Donegal, one in Monaghan, one in Wexford and one in Tipperary.
The ASH is basically admitting defeat in the war on smoking…………..
They go on with their yada yada yada BS. But the number of smokers worldwide is growin by leaps and bounds and governments are fast losing political will to bother with the mess any longer……….
At present, the only true barrier to tobacco control is political will. Fifty years from now, in 2064, tobacco should be a topic of history.
Our New Report Offers a Global Perspective on Tobacco in America – See more at: http://ash.org/tobaccoinamerica/#sthash.knC35iq4.dpuf
Yep political will is pretty well dying everywhere,oh there still getting a few here and there but for the most part its falling apart worldwide.
No Movement on Smoking Law for City
Posted: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:00 am
By Keith E. Domke St. Clair Missourian Editor
For the fifth consecutive meeting, the St. Clair Board of Aldermen spent very little time discussing a potential smoking ban in public places within the city limits.
The aldermen conducted their first meeting of June on Monday and had a draft ordinance on the subject in front of them. But, they opted again not to discuss the subject and instead take additional time to review
http://www.emissourian.com/local_news/saint_clair/article_22248496-eb46-11e3-a1c7-001a4bcf887a.html
As regards Magnetics Manhattan Beach video/story yesterday:
Oh well, I’ll add Manhattan Beach, a nondescript L.A. beach metropolis of no value to me whatsoever, to my list of places to avoid forever. Somehow the combination of a beach and a sprawling, buzzing big city never made much sense to me. There’s miles and miles of coastline where there’s nobody around to cite you for anything in southern California if you know your way around the place.
I live about 70 miles from L.A., yet haven’t been there since 2007.
Boycotting Los Angeles is such a sublime pleasure.
Just to expand on one of MJM’s comments yesterday.
Chapman is familiar with the nocebo effect. His references are usually to people demonstrating anxiety reactions to wind farms. However, he has also written concerning those that have become phobic (anxiety/aversion reactions) about all sources of smoke, particularly outdoors.
Chapman has acknowledged that the promotion/protection of psychogenic effects regarding secondhand smoke could undermine Tobacco Control:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598484/
Unfortunately he only refers to Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance (formerly Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) which implies that sufferers are a small, disparate group. This tends to seriously understate a mass scale nocebo effect. Concerning ambient tobacco smoke, many seem to have lapped up the inflammatory propaganda. It’s a global phenomenon. And there are many whose “reactions” are solely to tobacco smoke. A better characterization is the Environmental Somatization Syndrome that accounts for a mass-scale contagion effect, particularly when promoted by the State/Authorities. We’re talking about mass psychogenic illness. And then there are smokers who are constantly bombarded with gruesome images and tales of what will befall them if they don’t quit.
Inflammatory propaganda is fear and hate-mongering, the bulk of it terribly exaggerated or outright lies. It’s the modus operandus of moralizing zealots. It’s rationalized amongst the perpetrators as necessary to coerce conformity; people must be terrorized to comply. But it should be obvious that the Public Health perpetrators have no regard for psychological, social, or moral health. Why? Because they’re physicalists/materialists. These serious assaults on the multi-dimensions of health don’t register as health issues for physicalists. That’s why physicalists are dangerous when they are allowed to monopolize Public Health.
I’ve mentioned often that physicalism is a dangerously shallow framework that produces a dangerous, perverse definition of health – biological reductionism (and by “dangerous” I mean dangerous). It’s this sick philosophy and definition of health that was at the root of Eugenics and is now at the root of contemporary “healthism” (hygienism or neo-eugenics). We did have some good insight into physicalism and zealotry up to 30 years ago. That’s why the antismoking zealots had to hide their social-engineering intent until only more recently. But that’s all gone. There’s been a most terrible loss of insight on a mass scale. That’s what a few decades of highly-funded propaganda and many abandoning mental vigilance can “accomplish”. It would take considerable depth of reasoning and mental discipline not to be manipulated by the constant play on fear….. to not just capitulate to the negative momentum of the time….. to not just “go with the flow”.
So, yes, concerning smoking/SHS there are mass scale nocebo effects. These have been produced by The State/Public Health exploiting “appeal to authority” working towards the entirely questionable physicalist ideal of the smokefree “utopia”. It’s the perverse circumstance …. again…. of a profound assault on the multi-dimensions of health – in mass-scale terms – in the name of Public Health.
Here’s a short but very useful video on the nocebo effect. Interestingly, I got the link from Chapman’s twitter account. So he is familiar with the effect, just very selective about its relevance to smoking/SHS.
The video link should be spread widely.
Exellent, Magnetic! I will share the video.
A few thoughts:
Inflammatory propaganda is fear and hate-mongering, the bulk of it terribly exaggerated or outright lies. It’s the modus operandus of moralizing zealots. It’s rationalized amongst the perpetrators as necessary to coerce conformity; people must be terrorized to comply. But it should be obvious that the Public Health perpetrators have no regard for psychological, social, or moral health. Why? Because they’re physicalists/materialists.
I agree with all that up to the “physicalists/materialists” bit. Because they could also be said to be behaviourists who believe that all we know about people is their behaviour, and we must dispose of notions like “mind” or “spirit”. The important thing, as far as they are concerned, is behaviour. And the particular sort of behaviour they want to stop is the behaviour that is known as “smoking”.
But behaviourism isn’t really quite “physicalism/materialism”. It’s more about perception. For behaviourists, reality is what is seen, what is perceived. And once they’ve decided that reality is what is seen, they dispense with seeing. They forget that everything that is seen is seen by seers, people who see.
There are some similarities with physics (perhaps the nearest thing to physicalism/materialism), in that physicists and chemists study the physical world, and very often the physicists themselves are shrunk down into a single eye that is peering through a microscope’s eyepiece. But physicists and chemists also formulate hypotheses about what they see through the microscope. They are trying to learn. Science isn’t just peering through microscopes. It has a much larger intellectual dimension. It’s very thoughtful. Einstein, for example, was forever conducting “thought-experiments.” So no physicist or chemist is ever going to dispense with the idea of thoughts or hypotheses or dreams or hopes. Only behaviourists do that.
I’ve mentioned often that physicalism is a dangerously shallow framework that produces a dangerous, perverse definition of health – biological reductionism (and by “dangerous” I mean dangerous). It’s this sick philosophy and definition of health that was at the root of Eugenics and is now at the root of contemporary “healthism” (hygienism or neo-eugenics).
Their behavioural definition of health seems to simply be one of “longevity”. We know nothing (they say) about the internal workings (dreams, fears, hopes) of the organisms, but we know how long they live. And that’s all we can measure. There’s no such thing as a “good life”, but only of a “life”, which has a beginning and an end.
And once they’ve reduced people to their behaviour, they then start to reward some behaviours, and punish others, in the crudest possible way – in the hope of increasing longevity. The “utopia” they seek is one of infinite longevity. (I once came across a paper by Sir Richard Doll on the prospects of much increased longevity, so clearly he’d been thinking a lot about it).
Absent from this, of course, is any notion of any sort of “quality” of life. All that’s left is duration. And with it there vanishes friendship, community, conviviality, everything that goes to make for a “good life”. And when that’s added back in, it will be found that all the social engineering they’ve been engaged in has had utterly disastrous results, for precious few gains in longevity (and most likely either no gains at all, or losses).
Whatever it is we are breaking their proverbial BACKS!
Many good points, Frank. We would be in agreement on most.
“I agree with all that up to the “physicalists/materialists” bit.”
I’m not sure we understand the same thing by these terms. Note that I used the term physicalism, not physics. A physicist concerns himself with the study of the physical universe. Indeed, he has thoughts and ideas on how to better understand the subject matter. He may believe in mind and even have metaphysical beliefs. In other words, someone can practice the study of physics and yet not believe that the physical universe is all that exists.
Physicalism is a philosophical doctrine, or position, concerning the nature of existence (ontology). I’m trying to avoid getting into the philosophy because it can get [unnecessarily] complicated, if not circular, and time-consuming (and I’m strapped for time) for little gain. Materialism is the far, far older doctrine, physicalism a more recent offshoot. But for all intents and purposes given what we’re considering, they say much the same thing.
For some background, see this interesting essay:
http://realitysandwich.com/131913/physicalism_false_view_world/
For some background on the “complexities”, tangents, peculiarities, and circularities that philosophy can throw up:
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_physicalism.html
It’s even possible for people to be physicalist/materialist without even being aware that they are! They may never have heard of physicalism or done much thinking on existence at all. But their reasoning, whatever reasoning they do engage in, and their conduct are consistent with a physicalist perspective, e.g., contemporary Public Health.
Also this:
https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091001053835AAwd4lh
You can also do a google search of physicalism and materialism. There’ll be plenty of entries.
Nocebo: a detrimental effect on health produced by psychological or psychosomatic factors such as negative expectations of treatment or prognosis.
Toxicol Rev. 2003;22(4):235-46.
Idiopathic environmental intolerance: Part 1: A causation analysis applying Bradford Hill’s criteria to the toxicogenic theory.
Staudenmayer H, Binkley KE, Leznoff A, Phillips S.
Source
Behavioral Medicine, Multi-Disciplinary Toxicology, Treatment and Research Center, Denver, Colorado 80222, USA. hstaudenmayer@comcast.net
Abstract
Idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI) is a descriptor for a phenomenon that has many names including environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity and chemical intolerance. Toxicogenic and psychogenic theories have been proposed to explain IEI. This paper presents a causality analysis of the toxicogenic theory using Bradford Hill’s nine criteria (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, biological plausibility, coherence, experimental intervention and analogy) and an additional criteria (reversibility) and reviews critically the scientific literature on the topic. The results of this analysis indicate that the toxicogenic theory fails all of these criteria. There is no convincing evidence to support the fundamental postulate that IEI has a toxic aetiology; the hypothesised biological processes and mechanisms are implausible.
…
“Because they’re physicalists/materialists.”
And remarkably incompetent at that too:
In 2010, for French women of all ages, the crude rate for lung cancer was 22.7/100.000 (with a smoking rate of 28%) while the figure for UK women was 49.1 (smoking rate: 19%).
By the way, many thanks for providing words like “utopia” and “progressive” with inverted commas – in such a context, they surely cannot do without them.
Harley– what’s the link the propylene glycol article you posted yesterday– the one by the woman in Alaska that precedes the FDA link. Thanks.
http://mnvapers.com/2014/04/epa-fda-vapor-harmless-children/
Atually Walt I cant Find the Alaskan story link but damn that shit I posted has really made the airwaves in internet land I just found this too:
http://smokingintheworld.com/velvet-glove-iron-fist-so-now-e-cigarettes-are-tobacco-products-and-medicines/
http://blog.casaa.org/2014/05/second-call-to-action-for-fda-proposed.html
EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children
April 3, 2014 matt black
In the continued war on e-cigarettes, we hear about the “potential dangers” of e-cigarette vapor and the “unknown public health risks.”
First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.
I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Catchy title. I was intrigued.
This quote caught my eye:
Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).
In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.
Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)
Continued…
Method and Rates of Application
….
Air Sanitizer
Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10′x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)
A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.
General Toxicity Observations
Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.
Carcinogenicity Classification
A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)
Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…
2. FQPA Safety Factor
The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.
In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:
The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.
An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.
I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.
Government Forgets to Put Plain Cigarette Packaging in Queen’s Speech
http://www.breitbart.com
One of the biggest omissions in yesterday’s Queen’s Speech was plans for plain packaging for cigaret…
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Minneapolis tables proposed ordinance to ban all smoking in parks
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Tracie Roberts thought it was ridiculous to ban smoking from City Parks. Behind her a basketball game was going on at Loring Park. The Minneapolis …
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/261914641.html
Its over folks when Minneapolis wont follow thru the Nazis are truly being defeated.
West Texas Smoke Free Coalition wants to end smoking in restaurants, bars
Last line says it all
One person who isn’t happy with the smoke free plan is Jake’s Sports Café and Backroom Manager Scott Stephenson.
“There are plenty of places in this town for people that don’t smoke to go and they don’t have to be bothered with it,” Stephenson said. “If they come to a bar and it has a sign on the door that says smoking is allowed they make the choice to go in there. There are a lot of people that don’t smoke normally that sometimes still smoke when they go out and have a few drinks, so I think they need to quit trying to tell other people what to do.”
Stephenson says all of his employees and bartenders realize what they are getting themselves into and in his years of working there he has never encountered a medical problem because of the smoking atmosphere.
“Most, probably half of our employees or maybe most of them smoke. A lot of the non-smokers would rather wok here because they’re able to make more money here than let’s say they were bartending at a bar that doesn’t allow smoking. They’re not as busy,” he said.
http://www.ktre.com/story/25697393/west-texas-smoke-free-coalition-wants-to-end-smoking-in-restaurants-and-bars
I think they’ll leave Plain Packaging for the next government to introduce, like Blair left office three days before the Smoking ban and left it in Gordon Browns lap and Gordon Brown’s government voted through the Display Ban but left it for Cameron to implement.
Just because you feel obliged to follow the FCTC guidelines doesn’t mean that you expect to be popular for doing so.
Tony Blair’s 10 Years Of Tobacco Control
Friday 29 June 2007
“But as the sorry delays in the UK illustrate, signing up to the FCTC was the easy bit.
Implementation of all effective tobacco control policies requires sustained unwavering governmental commitment.
The short-term political costs may seem substantial, but the potential health gains are huge.”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/75557.php
At present, the only true barrier to tobacco control is political will.
http://ash.org/tobaccoinamerica/#sthash.Q2imQwmX.dpuf
Politically will is DEAD……………..
Glantz in Evansville my birthplace. Wish I had known its a short drive up there from here about an hour and half.
California professor to speak about e-cigarettes
A prominent anti-tobacco advocate and professor of medicine from San Francisco is in the region to talk about tobacco issues and electronic cigarettes.
Stanton Glantz, a professor and head of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, has fought for smoking bans for more than 30 years.
During meeting Wednesday afternoon with the Courier & Press editorial board, Glantz took issue with a recently overturned smoking ban in Evansville, specifically the city’s reluctance to pass a comprehensive ban including its riverboat casino.
Glantz called claims that smoking bans adversely affected business for bars, restaurants and casinos as “bologna.” Even if the casino lost money under a smoking ban, he said, the amount saved in hospital visits and health care costs would outweigh the lost revenue.
In addition to talking about tobacco control, Glantz is addressing the growing trend of e-cigarettes.
“They’re not as bad as cigarettes,” Glantz said, however, he said that doesn’t mean he endorses the growing trend.
Users who inhale vapors are still getting a blast of fine particles in their lungs, just not as many as with cigarette smoke, which can lead to medical issues, he said.
E-cigarettes are often touted as a tool to quit smoking, but Glantz said studies show people who use e-cigarettes tend to keep smoking cigarettes.
Glantz also took issue what he said was “deeply unregulated marketing to kids” with e-cigarettes.
Glantz spoke about e-cigarettes at Ivy Tech’s Vectren Auditorium Wednesday night. He is scheduled to speak at the Spencer County 4-H Center at 7:30 a.m. Thursday and at noon at the Vincennes University Gibson County Campus in Fort Branch
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2014/jun/04/california-professor-to-speak-about-e-cigarettes/
Mag or anyone else might want to nail ole Stanton glanz they have comments and a nest of Nazis Ive fooled with over the last few years………….beware of concernedmom as she seems to be the biggest Nazi there.
Draft legislation promises tougher measures on tobacco
Individuals will be allowed to buy a maximum of one carton of cigarettes at a time under changes to tobacco legislation published yesterday.
The draft legislation has yet to be approved by Parliament but
will slash the maximum number of cigarettes that retailers can sell to individuals from the current 1000 to 200.
The legislation will also require shop owners to place prominent notices informing customers that they are only allowed to carry a carton of cigarettes into countries within the EU Common Customs Territory.
The sign must read: “The maximum amount of cigarettes that can be imported into the EU Common Customs Territory is 200 cigarettes.”
The amendments to the 1997 Tobacco Act are the latest in a string of measures taken by the Gibraltar Government to stem clandestine tobacco activities in line with the European Commission’s recommendations.
The draft legislation also gives the Collector of Customs additional powers to suspend or revoke the wholesale or retail licences of any holder charged with an offence under the Tobacco Act.
The proposed legislative amendments would also prevent a change in the directors or shareholders where a licence holder is charged with a tobacco offence.
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=34090
From Austria:
Health Minister demands total smoking ban
Health Minister Alois Stöger (SPÖ) has announced plans to enforce a total ban on smoking in restaurants by 2018.
Austria’s Medical Association has long been insisting that ashtrays should disappear from café tables, pointing to studies which show young people would
smoke up to 50% less if smoking was fully banned in cafés and restaurants……
Vienna’s Health Councillor, Sonja Wehsely (SPÖ), has thrown her support behind Stöger’s proposed ban.
“Austria must take the next step,” she says. “A smoking ban in restaurants is already normal in Europe.”
Doctors at the Austrian Medical Association are calling for ‘national solidarity’ on the issue……
One active smoker dies every hour from a smoking related disease in Austria. Three passive smokers die each day.
“Action is needed,” said Medical Association head Thomas Szekeres. “Smoking must be prohibited in restaurants and cigarette prices must be raised.”
http://www.thelocal.at/20140602/health-minister-demands-total-smoking-ban
Austria even has a “Nicotine Institute”
Magnetic, THANKS!
It’s just that the Austrian people know nothing about a smoking ban being pushed through. I was there only a few days ago and replenished my tobacco stash whilst enjoying being able to go for a meal and a few drinks without being kicked out when I wanted to smoke. Actually, while I was there I did notice that smoking itself lost it’s importance to me. Or is it that the importance of smoking has increased since the dictation of the ban?
I shall speak to my Austrian friends!!
When I was there earlier this year I did suspect that the anti-smoking lobby was going full throttle: Tobacconists are allowed only to sell NICOTINE-FREE e-cigarettes; nicotine containing E-Lite lookalikes you can only get in pharmacies there. A sermon about the ‘danger’ of using e-cigs is thrown in for free across the counter!
If you hope to get an e.g. e-Go e-cig and e-liquid you have a task on your hand. As a visitor to the place you have no chance!!!! Even residents have to find someone who can get you them + liquid.
I did immediately suspect that the filthy anti-smokers are changing their tactics in Austria and that they are working towards a ban, boxing in the e-cigs PRIOR to it!
The residents were confident that this was not the case. As already said, I shall pass on your link, Magnetic!! Thanks very much for it!!!!
From: ‘The Bolton Smokers’ Club’
Where did the rumour that PP would appear in the Queen’s Speech come from?
I was a bit shocked, intellectually, when it was suggested.
I mean, the Commons has already given the Government permission to introduce PP (and a ban on smoking in cars when children are present) whenever it wishes to.
So why should such a thing appear in the Queen’s Speech?
Gary, from how I understand it is essential in British politics that Her Majesty announces finalized decisions made by the government in power in “speeches”. Although Her Majesty represents GB and announces decisions made, she has very little power to apply what all politicians lack: COMMON SENSE.
If I have got this wrong, Brits, please feel free to correct me!!!
He also wrote:
“I fully expect the Cameron/Clegg/Miliband axis to include PP because it is in ALL their interests not to antagonise the Medical Establishment. The fact that the Medical Establishment, in this matter, has no actual input as to whether or not PP will do what it is supposed to do (deter youngsters from smoking) is immaterial. If the Axis believes that PP will neutralise the Medical Establishment, it will go for it, purely opportunistically.”
I have no idea whether it’s necessary for the government to set out its programme in the Queen’s Speech or not. After all, it isn’t necessary for political parties to tell the truth in their manifestos (e.g. Labour’s ‘partial’ smoking ban, ha ha ha). It’s all window dressing.
“I fully expect the Cameron/Clegg/Miliband axis to include PP because it is in ALL their interests not to antagonise the Medical Establishment.
Where does the Medical Establishment gets it’s instruction from? From a silly lobby group with cash from rich people who want to look good.
In the meantime I do hope that every mutated, previously benign, micro-organism starts it’s mutation on/with the anti-smoking community. That way we smokers and vapers have a chance!!!
He told Retail Express: “It’s a complete triumph for the nanny state and it’s completely ridiculous. It won’t make any difference at all to smoking levels.
“Without branding people may be inclined to buy illicit cigarettes from under the counter. With plain packaging you increase the risk to the consumer, you damage business and you fail to treat people like responsible adults.”
Thank you, Mr. Philip Davies! It is ESPECIALLY the last parts of each of the sentence that the anti-smoking zealots deliberately ignore!
He is right:
1. PP will not make a difference to smoking levels, however, it will make a difference to the QUALITY of tobacco available.
2. Like an awful lot of people I have been – and EXPECTED TO BE – an ADULT for a long, long time. I have raised my offspring whilst going to university and continued to pay my mortgage which left rather interesting methods applied when providing the daily meals. All this led to another measure – in times when people lost their savings in banks, I overpaid my electric/gas companies. (Beats the box with cash buried in the garden any time!!!) By the time one of them checked my account the biggest bank fail scare was over. I did drag my feet for as long as I could to delay but eventually one of them (electric providing company) just put the first 2 grant back into my account and my biggest “saving” mule followed suit in 2011. Ever since they keep track of my monthly payments.
I was acting as a RESPONSIBLE adult, ensuring that MY money was not disappearing in a black hole in a bank that might gamble on a volatile stock market. I, myself, was not out to make a profit, I just ensured that MY money was not lost.
And now the fearful lobby the government to treat me as if I have no skills, less even, to be in control of my behaviour and habits. Perhaps, as ADULTS, we all need to ADDRESS this issue of state controlled life!!