Fanaticism Institutionalised

Another Chris Snowdon quote, again in respect of plain packaging:

“It is extraordinary that a government which claims to be against excessive regulation should be contemplating a law which even the provisional wing of the anti-smoking lobby considered unthinkable until very recently. It seems that fanaticism has become institutionalised and a handful of extremists have become the de facto policy makers in matters related to tobacco. The public are gradually waking up to the fact that these neo-prohibitionists will never be satisfied. There is always another cause to campaign for, always new demands to be met. If it is not smoking, it is drinking. If it is not drinking, it is eating.”

It is indeed extraordinary, and fanaticism does indeed seem to have become institutionalised, and policy is now being made by extremists, and by nobody else.

I found myself wondering whether there have been any examples at all of fanatical antismoking measures which have ever been kicked into touch. We have the comprehensive and draconian smoking ban, and on the way we have the removal of tobacco shop displays and and the introduction of plain packaging. There are also calls for in-car smoking bans, and outdoor bans as well (e.g. Stony Stratford). How long before smoking is banned outdoors and in cars? How long before smoking is then banned in people’s own homes? Is there any point where this government will say Enough Is Enough?

I’m beginning to think that there isn’t, and fanaticism really has become institutionalised, and now completely determines policy. One measure after another is suggested, publicised, and then implemented. There is a minimum of ‘consultation’, during which objections (such as those by tobacco retailers) are ignored. The proposals just get rammed through anyway. The decisions have already been made.

Then there was that Your Choice online public ‘consultation’ a year or so back in which calls for an end to the smoking ban were ignored, with Nick Clegg saying that the death penalty would be introduced before the smoking ban was lifted. So much for online public consultation.

Is there any point, in such circumstances, in anyone going along with this charade of public consultation, and appearing on TV or radio with the likes of Deborah Arnott? It only helps the government make it look like they’re consulting, when in fact they’re not.

And I increasingly feel that the same is happening with AGW alarmism. Despite the rise in public scepticism – particularly since Climategate -, the UK government appears to be hell bent on continuing with its ruinous carbon emission targets, and last year’s BBC report in the aftermath of Climategate concluded that sceptics (or “deniers”) should not be granted any more of a hearing than they ever were. Nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of this separate extremist agenda either.

It’s looks more and more as if there is a timetable of events. And the next stage will be to start restricting alcohol, and many varieties of foods. These proposals will also be accompanied by more fake public consultations, and then rammed through anyway, regardless of any opposition.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Fanaticism Institutionalised

  1. Tom says:

    “… Is there any point where this government will say enough is enough?…”

    Well, no. Governments never do. They feed on controlling more and more everyday, being more entwined in the lives of the ‘free’ at every possible opportunity… It is and will always be the number one growth industry…

    I’ve come to think it’s actually the natural function of things; individuals, minority groups, versus governments or rulers – it’s never in balance and like the tides in the ocean it ebbs and flows. The inevitable is that they make the persecuted minority a majority by reaching across too far an audience….

  2. ”The proposals just get rammed through anyway. The decisions have already been made”

    Frank,take a look on their forecasting to see where we are heading

    Click to access atlas38.pdf

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      A severe economic depression and/or a major
      international security crisis cause tobacco
      issues to temporarily diminish in importance.

      Temporarily my ass! Everybodies defunding the bastards!

  3. The endgame is a smokefree world. That’s what WHO laid out out in their blueprint, and what ASH and Co have signed up to. Totally smokefree. They have plans to vaccinate us if we refuse to quit.

  4. Tom says:

    I’ve been pondering your last few posts, and I apologize for muddling them together in this reply.

    I can’t help but wonder, but does the whole idea of a ‘Social Smoker’ not throw the whole claim of addiction in the garbage? Seems to me if nicotine is more addictive than heroin (one of their favorite claims), then a being a social smoker isn’t really possible. I’ve never met a social herion user, though I’ve met many infequent and ‘social smokers’. I’ve known of people trying to get off heroin; it’s a powerful drug, and the withdrawals are severe and ugly. When I abstained from smoking (for about a 1 1/2 years) I never experienced any withdrawals, except maybe a little lethargy for a day or two – less than what I felt when laying off caffeine for a month…

    Seems too, they love painting someone on the ‘pro’ side of the issue as being in league with the tobacco companies. I can’t wait for the day for someone to hammer them back for being tied to and funded by the pharmaceutical companies. Tylenol (acetaminophen) kills about 2500 a year by causing liver failure. Advil (ibuprofen) kills another 2500 by destroying the kidneys. No one talks about that, and anyone can buy it. Not to mention the drugs like Chantix/Champix, that are known to cause suicidal thoughts, depression, and suicide itself. No worries. No blood on those hands – nothing illicit about that.

    I love the way the debate shifts and evolves at their whim. Here in the US, I keep getting whiffs of the third hand smoke argument now. And it’s the same sort of crap game that Al Gore tried when he declared, “the debate is over!”. Because who can debate second hand smoke any longer, when now we’re talking about the dangers of it 3rd hand? That is their tactic, and the media plays along. Because in the debate about 3rd hand smoke there’s no need to go back an reexamine any of the fallacies of second hand smoke and so on.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Actually ol Simon Chapman just told the nuts to stop using 3rd hand smoke,it was embarrasing them. But the 3rd hand claims really make a good argument after the lunacy sets in that the second hand smoke junk is just as INSANE! I always argue the point to the bitter end anytime I see the claim made. Its just to easy to destroy and makes a nice trail right into the SHS/ETS junk science. Never give the debate to them, destroy it!

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    O/T but wow In America we got smacked with the same thing 9 rate increases by TVA in 2 years after Obama put coal surcharges on every ton! Green is destroying the very foundations of our economy everywhere….

    BRITISH GAS bosses hit back at accusations of profiteering yesterday — and blamed the Government’s green agenda for pushing up household bills.

    The power giant went on the offensive after reporting profits of more than £500million for 2011.

    Chief executive Sam Laidlaw said Government eco charges and taxes now account for 15 PER CENT of every home’s power bills.

    And he warned environmental costs could DOUBLE to £160 per household per year by 2015. He asked: “Is that right in the current climate?”

    The comments came as British Gas-owner CENTRICA reported annual profits of £2.4billion — up 1 per cent.

    British Gas made £522million. That figure is down 30 per cent on 2010 as mild weather slashed residential gas consumption.

    Watchdogs said customers, who have endured huge bill hikes, would be “gobsmacked” by the figures. But Mr Laidlaw argued British Gas is at the mercy of world markets and the Government’s bid to speed up the green revolution.

  6. smokervoter says:

    When I tuned in Rush Limbaugh this morning he was in high gear talking about the machinations of a possible Romney-Paul ticket and his source was the Daily Mail UK.

    What’s this got to do with smoking bans and the UK?

    Plenty. Imagine Cameron and Clegg (Miliband, too) watching the election results come November and watching the nanny king Obama go down in defeat. Picture a libertarian/conservative known for his freedom movement that close to the apex of power.

    I could go on and on here but I won’t. But since the source was the Daily Mail I’d love to hear some cross Atlantic feedback.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Heres the fine point about romney. ROMNEYCARE in Massachusetts is the mother of OBAMACARE! Romneys a RINO progressive and paul wont get a chance to say anything or even get a chance to push his libertarian views.This is just a spice ticket to get romney the young vote that paul attracts. What we need is paul as president and Romney a VP hidden for 4 years under a homeless shelter!

      • Tom2 says:

        Yes, the ticket needs reversed. But with GOP establishment hell bent and determined on getting a RINO to pick up where Obama left off, it won’t make any difference at all come next election voting for either party. RP as VP would only make a difference if there was a successful Romney assassination right after the swearing in ceremony.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Tom exactly right!

      • smokervoter says:

        Agreed, agreed and agreed. Unfortunately not enough smokers and rotund folks bothered to vote for Ron Paul. Only he or Romney are capable of dethroning Obama. Ron Paul has about 12% of the vote. I’m a Machiavellian SOB.

        From what I’ve been able to unearth on Romney, he didn’t tap smokers pocketbooks to pay for RomneyCare. His successor did.

        It is imperative that we defeat the Democrats. There is a Democrat sponsored bill waiting in the wings to double tobacco taxes again. Only Boehner’s Republican House stands in the way.

        Ron Paul as VP is better than no Ron Paul at all. He would act as a bully pulpit brake on the runaway institutionalised fanaticism Frank is describing here.

    • Romney/Paul is a pipe dream. Sorry.

      • churchmouse says:

        Agree, Dick — it will not happen.

      • Frank Davis says:

        Smokervoter in California has asked me to relay this response of his:

        It is indeed a pipe dream. This moony speculation underestimates both the magnitude of America’s addiction to empire as well as its steadfast abstention from individual freedom.

        Despite our advanced billing as a nation of strong, freedom-loving people, a slight plurality of us are hypochondriacs, Puritans and malleable drones.

        It also overlooks the fact that the natural self-preservation instinct has been successfully socially engineered out of the 28 million smokers likely to cast votes. If the aforementioned tobacco tax becomes law it will cost me $450 (284 GBP) per year.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    And the next stage will be to start restricting alcohol, and many varieties of foods. These proposals will also be accompanied by more fake public consultations, and then rammed through anyway, regardless of any opposition.

    How right you are Frank:

    CDC Awards Funds to Viridian Health Management to Increase Workplace Health Programs
    Nov. 28, 2011
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) awarded Viridian Health Management, based out of Arizona, $9 million to increase comprehensive workplace health programs in organizations across the country. This management company will work with 70 to 100 small, medium and large organizations to help them develop or expand their workplace health programs.

    This initative, funded through the Affordable Care Act, helps workplaces to support healthy lifestyles and reduce risk factors for chronic diseases in order to improve the health of American workers and their families. Interested companies need to apply and will be chosen based on many different factors.

    Over a two year period, these funds will help support evidence-based initiatives that aim to build worksite capacity and improve workplace cultures supportive of healthy behaviors. For more information on the new workplace health initiative, click here.

    Its to use state and local governments plus businesses to use their contract purchasing of food to force thier suppliers to go to low sodium,low fat,low everything in their manufacturing processes to meet their stated goals of healthy foods. Its backdoor forced compliance and they figure that will filter down to whats put in the stores to sell also for the general public! Since they cant just outlaw foods that dont meet their green agendas requirements which change at any given moment.

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    CDC recruits employers to make workplaces healthier

    It’s called the National Healthy Worksite Program and the CDC will select up to 100 businesses to participate.

    As we all know, actually getting someone to change unhealthy habits is no easy task. But as employers face rising health care costs, a program to help curb this expensive trend might look pretty good. Plus, healthier employees mean fewer sick days and injuries on the job.

    Employers of all sizes can apply but have to meet certain requirements, like offering health insurance to all eligible employees and allowing people to participate in wellness activities during work hours.

    First, employers will assess the health of their workers by measuring conditions such as obesity and high blood pressure.

    Once they’ve targeted areas for improvement, here are some examples of what programs will focus on:

    Environmental changes:

    — Healthy vending machine options.

    — Onsite Farmer’s Market.

    — Promoting use of stairs instead of elevators.

    Programs/policies for healthier behaviors:

    — Free classes on smoking cessation, stress management and nutrition.

    — Tobacco-free campus.

    — Exercise programs onsite.

    — Free weight loss counseling and coaching.

    — Scheduled, short exercise breaks – having a “walking meeting” or 10-minute stretch break at your desk.

    The chosen businesses won’t get grant money to start these programs. Instead wellness trainers will do worksite assessments and help create tailored programs at no cost. Researchers will follow the program’s progress and impact. They’ll also ask employees who didn’t participate why they chose not to.

    Jason Lang is with the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. He says the CDC and a contractor -– Viridian Health Management -– will work intensely with the selected employers to run the programs.

    The health care law set aside $9 million through the Prevention and Public Health Fund to develop the program and pay the contractors.

    Lang says many employers are interested in applying. In a recent conference call more than 700 people registered to learn more about the program. The CDC plans to announce the selected employers in the spring

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Heres another one Frank just out a minute ago:
    Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012

    Bill would prod state workers to improve health in Mississippi

    Read more here:

    Planch said other states have either raised rates or given discounts ranging between $15 and $40 a month. So employees on the $20-a-month plan could get free health insurance if they participate. And those on the current free plan could end up paying $20 a month if they don’t cooperate.
    Proponents say employees don’t have to conquer obesity or smoking, just show that they’re trying to do something about it, by seeing their doctor or taking part in wellness programs the insurance plan already offers.
    “If you’ll simply participate in the program, we’ll say you’re managing your disease state,” Planch told the committee. “The whole discussion has been around not trying to find a way to penalize people, but to encourage people to take advantage of these programs.”
    She said the nudge of paying more could “significantly improve” participation.
    Planch said Thursday that people with “no risk factors” would get the same break as those who are managing their problems. It’s unclear if periodic testing for risk factors would be required.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank I been making cowboy action gunslinger gunbelts for all of us in the family this week. Brothers comming up tomorro with his new 45 colt peacemaker for a fitting then off to our private shooting range my backyard to practice out quickdraw! I use to be real good in the 1980s I was on the navy bases sharphooters team. I could put 5 rounds in a 5×5 inch target at 50 feet back then. Now I can only get 2 in it out of 6 shots on a from the hip shooting position. No aiming just from the hip,draw and fire.

    But back then I was shooting 2 hours every other day and wasting 300 rounds at a time. You gotta let your hand muscles relaxe after that many rounds or it tosses your aim off badly.

    • Tom2 says:

      Better stock up on ammo too. I hear that’s the run around to gun control laws and breaking the 2nd Amendment by making ammo unavailable or in short supply. Just saying.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ive got a reloader I can put out about 300 rounds an hour with it. As far as lead for bullets I get old tire balancing weights and melt them down the pour for bullets. Powders easy to come by and primers but I got a stock pile of about 10000 primers and 30 pounds of powder. Maybe 120 pounds of lead right now.

    Anyway its a fun hobby and even more fun reloading.

  12. Walt says:

    I disagree that television debates are useless, though I do agree they do little to nothing to influence the great majority of legislators who are hell bent on bending us to hell. The virtue lies in reaching the general public most of whom have no vested interest (like campaign contributions, fear of reprisals and bad publicity from the ASH’s of the world), Without substantial public opinion favoring these bans, taxes, whatever, the pols would be more likely to think twice.

    Slippery Slope Dept, Alcohol Division. Don’t yet have a link, but just heard of a study done out of Dartmouth, published in the BMJ, that purports to prove that children who’ve watched movies where anyone drinks alcohol are grotesquely more likely to binge drink as teens and to become alcoholics.

    Addenda from yesterday. You gave the stat for allegedly SHS-caused lung cancer as 1.25 but (tho I could be wrong) isn’t it actually just . 25 since the “1” part is the base? IOW, they claim a 16% (WHO), 19% (EPA) and perhaps up to a 25% added risk (and it’s only added risk and the confidence rates are jiggered and stats aren’t always statistically significant) when the criteria for riskiness that skirts random chance is anywhere from 200-300%.

    I’d defend Chris Snowdon. It’s possible to believe, rightly or wrongly, that X is somehow causally linked to Y and still defend X and the right to do it. Sex is causally linked to a range of unpleasant and occasionally fatal diseases but I still defend sex.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Addenda from yesterday. You gave the stat for allegedly SHS-caused lung cancer as 1.25 but (tho I could be wrong) isn’t it actually just . 25 since the “1″ part is the base?

      You’re dead right. 1.25 is the relative risk. 0.25 is the increased risk. I’ve edited my comment to correct it.

      And Chris Snowdon is perfectly entitled to his own opinions. And in this respect his opinions, it must be said, are the opinions of the vast majority of people. It’s people like me who are the outsiders.

  13. Tom says:

    Here, this is how tobacco companies, if they wanted to, could win back popular support, by following the example of one of the most well known legal brothels in Northern Nevada, USA. The legally licensed brothel, named Mustang Ranch, takes every opportunity to donate loads of food to food banks, money to school districts in need of funds, other donations to benefit the local communities. By doing that, then it retains high support among the general population – something tobacco companies could consider doing to cut through the magical spell of fanaticism that the Big Anti-Tobacco Control Industry has cast through its lies and propaganda.

    For example:

    Time for the tobacco companies to wisen up and begin benefacting charities, schools and hospitals in need of funding again. I mean, if a brothel can gain popular support by doing so, then certainly could anyone else, including tobacco companies, much as they used to. Politicians would be hard-pressed to push for anti-smoking measures if the general population was appreciative for donations the tobacco industry could be making. And that would leave the Big Anti-Tobacco Control Industry in the wide-open public eye to be seen as sucking from the public teat, being the prostitute that the Big Anti-Tobacco Control Industry has become.

  14. Rose says:

    This explains a lot.

    “In the Strangers’ Bar, where last night’s fracas is alleged to have taken place, MPs can enjoy a pint of ale for £2.70 or a bitter for £2.60.

    Last year Dr Sarah Wollaston, a GP and MP for Totnes, said some MPs are too drunk to stand up in debates and have “no idea” what they are voting for.”

  15. harleyrider1978 says:

    This explains a lot of whats going on and who is behind it!

    War on Fat Draining Funds From Tobacco Fight
    July 28, 2010, 1:59 pm

    Funding for anti-tobacco efforts is taking a hit as governments and philanthropies switch their preventive-health focus to fighting obesity, says The New York Times.

    The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nation’s largest private grant maker for anti-smoking efforts, trimmed tobacco-related grants to $4-million last year while committing $58-million to the weight issue. With Michelle Obama leading a campaign against childhood obesity, the White House steered $1.15-billion from the economic-stimulus and health-care overhaul bills toward the fight against fat, compared to $200-million for preventing tobacco use.

    States are also cutting back on funds for anti-smoking programs, raising concerns among tobacco-control organizations.

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    Now can the likes of James Repace change rolls of quack second hand smoke scientist to quack dietic scientist and keep his meglomania alive!

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    Look at what these non-profits admit doing,it was a gravy train of tax money for them!
    Feb 2012
    A Coming ‘Train Wreck’

    “Over the years, I would often have to call someone in state government or elsewhere and tell them they had to get a grant or a check to us sooner rather than later because we were on the edge,” Mr. Wood says. “Some of the board members didn’t get the idea of living on the edge. They were coming out of an economy where, if your house is under water, you walk away from it. The fact is, some of us had learned to breathe under water, and they didn’t understand that.”

    I hope they all collapse.

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    RWJF set up tobacco free kids so I thought ok lets google fat free kids and look what pops up!
    Hunger-Free Kids = Fat-free-kids
    Good lord I gotta quit googling its everywhere:

    How can the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act make school foods healthier?

    Takeaways: ■ The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act requires that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issue new national nutrition standards for school meals and for competitive foods and beverages sold through vending machines and elsewhere. ■ The new law authorizes an increase in federal funding by 6 cents per lunch for schools that meet USDA’s updated nutrition standards, the largest reimbursement increase above inflation in more than 30 years. ■ The new law authorizes some $50 million for training and technical assistance to help school food service workers prepare nutritious meals

    Click to access howcanthehealthyhungerfreekidsactmakeschoolfoodshealthier.pdf

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      competitive foods = green food vendors to be contracted. Read that in a cdc web page 2 days ago.

      • Tom2 says:

        Yes, and all the mobile lunch wagons serving an assortment of foods, from salads to hamburgers, from tacos to noodles, from sandwichs to soups, mostly all of which are owned and operated by Mexican, Chinese, Vietnamese and other immigration groups who came in to American to do honest work and operate honest businesses to achieve the American dream of having their own enterprises – these are currently being banned and made illegal throughout all of California, thanks to legislation in Sacramento based on “saving the children” by banning lunch wagons anywhere within half a mile of any school, which pretty much wipes out the trade for these hard working entrepreuners state wide, since schools are located everywhere throughout major cities, nearly all territory banned. Then, like in San Francisco, the city licenses only newcomers into the lunch wagon trade, which are all very white, very middle upper class, yuppie owned types serving highly expensive “green” meals that the government approves, in all the outdoor smoke-banned areas, thus driving out true diversity with fake-diversity, driving out the real honest hardworking enterprising poor immigrants to be replaced by the white liberal-progressive-and-racist upper-middle classes who have taken these markets by force – vis-a-vis all this “banning” “for the children” routine and for the wealthy liberal-progressive-and-racist-white-upper-middle-classes, who will be the only ones with enough money to be able to afford these luxuries. Thus, the wealthy elite, using liberal-progressive ideology, manage to fake-out the masses into oh-so-believing, for the sake of the children, much to the demise of true diversity and loss of all opportunity to the lower classes, who bought into all the propaganda and lies, from smoke-bans to food-bans to alcohol-bans – all lies designed to put down the very lower classes, which the ruling elite claimed to be helping, while helping only themselves all along. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

  19. garyk30 says:

    “You’re dead right. 1.25 is the relative risk. 0.25 is the increased risk.”

    That says nothing about the probability of occurrence.
    That is 20%.
    4 in the non-exposed group and 5 in the exposed group gives you a 25% increased risk/ RR1.25.
    1 in 5 is 20%.
    Antis will claim the 1 in 5 has a 100% chance of ‘causation’ ; but, unless the cancerous lungs come in different colors due to what causes them , there is no way to tell which 1 is the 1.

    You are left with each 1 having a 1/5th probability of being the 1 and that is 20%.

    There is only a 1/625 probability of 1 of them having 100% causation.

    Consider rolling 5, five sided, dice with the number 1 being caused by SHS/ETS.

    Each dice will have a 1/5th chance of coming up 1 and a 4/5th chance of not coming up 1.

    There are only 5 chances that 1 will come up on 1 of the dice out of the 3,125 possible combinations(5x5x5x5x5=3,125).

    3,125 divided by 5 = 625.

    4x4x4x4x4= 1,024; so, there is a 1/3rd probability that none of the dice will come up 1.

    • Jay says:

      “Is there any point where this government will say Enough Is Enough?”

      No, the Precautionary Principle will be appealed to at every step.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The precautionary principle itself is a catch 22 argument. It entails giving no proof the same standing as actually having positive proof. In essence it makes a negative a positive which we all know you can never prove a negative. By using this principle we might as well all just kill ourselves as chance living with possible threats that might harm us. Its actually created to let the nazis claim whatever they want and get away with it! Its use must be destroyed as its led to total destruction of the scientific process trying to create proof where none exists to begin with,hense the mountain of evidence we hear the nazis preach all over the place without actually being held to any proof at all!

        The principle itself cannot stand, it means an end to all we hold dear TRUTH.

        Without truth we have no meaning,we have no future,we have no life,no culture. We have only created hazzards that never existed,a culture defeated by fanaticism and led by radical nut cases passing laws based upon NOTHING! It gives basis to outlawing anything based upon nothing,it lowers the standard of proof in court to that of hearsay evidence to now convict!

        How did it happen,quite simply ENVIROMENTALISM!

  20. harleyrider1978 says:

    Precaution as Customary Law
    The question whether the precautionary principle is a principle of customary international
    law has received a great deal of attention, particularly since the principle’s inclusion
    in the Rio Declaration.

    Click to access 82.pdf

    Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

    The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,

    Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992,

    Yes indeed the precautionary principle is an intregal part of GLOBA GOVERNANCE and well taking over the world! The UN must be destroyed……….If it lives we all die.

No need to log in

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.