They Never Stop, Do They?

They never stop, do they?

Today’s call by for a ban on smoking in parks and squares attracted only a modest amount of media attention.

We’ve been here before of course because former Labour health minister Lord Darzi made a similar plea in October 2014 before he was shot down by Boris Johnson who called the idea “bossy”.

Darzi will no doubt return again and again to the subject, aided and abetted by an increasing number of politicians and anti-smoking campaigners, but for now there seems little enthusiasm for the proposal.

Actually, in the UK, it started with Stony Stratford. But this time it’s Simon Chapman who has objected:

Professor Simon Chapman at the University of Sydney says there is no scientific justification for such a draconian attack on basic freedoms.

He points out that no studies have looked at exposure in parks or on beaches – “almost certainly because researchers with any knowledge of airborne exposures would appreciate that such exposures would be so small, dissipated, and transitory as to be of no concern.”

He argues that outdoor bans based on communities’ amenity preferences “should not be dressed up in the language of public health” and says the line of shielding children from the sight of smoking “is pernicious and is redolent of totalitarian regimes in their penchants for repressing various liberties, communication, and cultural expression not sanctioned by the state.”

Coercing people to stop smoking in settings where it poses negligible risk to others is openly paternalistic, he writes. If it is fine to tell smokers that they cannot be seen to smoke anywhere in public, why not extend the same reasoning to drinkers or to people wolfing down supersized orders in fast food outlets?

I’m beginning to think that this is a tactic in the antis’ playbook. First make a name for yourself as an antismoking zealot. Then, somewhere down the track, say that some proposed new measure is outrageous/over the top/completely unjustified, and start fighting against your former allies in Tobacco Control (while remaining a zealot in all other respects). That way you get a bit of a name for standing up for smokers.

The point of the exercise is get your people not only into Tobacco Control (where they all start life anyway), but also into the opposition to Tobacco Control. Think of them as two armies: Tobacco Control on one side, and Libertarians on the other side. It would sure help Tobacco Control if many of the leading lights in the Libertarian army originated in Tobacco Control, and remained true believers, wouldn’t it?

So many people have done it that it’s beginning to look like standard practice. Michael Siegel. Clive Bates. Now Simon Chapman. You could say it was started by Richard Doll’s denial that there was any danger in secondhand smoke.

I’d steer well clear of such people. They’re all snakes.

And one for the girls: Russian Lawmakers Propose Banning Women Under 40 from Smoking.

Supporters of the law, which has been stuck in a parliamentary committee since June 2014, reason that the health risks posed to children by mothers smoking (such as increased odds of stillbirths, premature birth, cleft palates, and so on) outweigh any civil right to tobacco. The law would apply to all women, not just those who are pregnant. “Female smokers are often unable to carry a fetus to term or even become pregnant in the first place, as smoking kills an egg’s ability to be fertilized,” the legislation argues. The law would also ban the sale of tobacco products to women of any age in the presence of their non-adult children.

And following on from yesterday, a 5-year-old essay by John Brignell that’s as true today as it was back then.

How we know they know they are lying

There are major differences between real science and bureaucratic science (BS). Real science involves living with the prospect of failure. In BS, failure is not allowed. The whole project is mapped out beforehand in forms such as Gantt charts. There are deliverables that have to be delivered on the due date. With the exception of really big physics, real science is carried out by small groups. It is the same with BS, except that there are about five managers for every researcher. Above all the expected result must be delivered on time. Those who desire further patronage never report a negative result or, indeed, a result at variance with the expectations of the sponsors.

We can identify the “scientists” who habitually lie by the fact that they produce, on time, results that are never unexpected and always conform to the establishment-sponsored theory. Real science is never that predictable…

About Frank Davis

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

53 Responses to They Never Stop, Do They?

    • Frank Davis says:

      You’re quite the true believer in global warming, aren’t you?

      • castello2 says:

        Who has more money? Big oil or big environment, whoever that is.

        • Globall cooling,Globall warming and now climate change…………take your pick because they changed names like underwear as they dirtied and soiled one claim and moved onto the next trying to keep the UN socialist one world order in order. Its not working and its fallen apart even when they get the senate of the US to vote to make a claim clmate change is real………..Its all been a political tool of the left and even the GOP since the inception of the UN in 1948 and lowly getting their ducks in a row to get the game complete. Wilson a progressive tried to get the game rolling on the One world order with his league of nations. It failed miserably until another world war broke out and its been the charter of nations since then screwing up everyones freedoms, Don’t forget the first progressive movement brought us tobacco prohibition along with alcohol prohibition in 1900-1919 and longer.

          Todays world is nothing but yesterdays failed utopia trying to come back again using the EXACT SAME TACTICS as before and oh how Hitler fits into the finery of it all. He was doing just what todays progressives are doing almost to a tee!

          Total top down control of life everything hitler did in his run up to power and after are happening now save the killing of jews or smokers YET!

        • Frank Davis says:

          If by ‘big environment’ you mean Greenpeace, WWF, etc, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they now have more money.

          But do you automatically side with the little guy, whoever that happens to be? Is money the only measure of (lack of) worth?

        • garyk30 says:

          The Govts that support ‘Global Warming/Climate Change’ can steal more money from the taxpayers than is available to ALL of ‘Big Oil’.

        • Edgar says:

          The relevant question is: Who is telling the truth and who is lying? Well, we know that the climate change faithful have lied ….

  1. jaxthefirst says:

    I must admit, Frank, that when I first saw mention of Chapman’s comments over on the Simon Clark’s blog yesterday I did a double-take. Then I just thought that with my highly advanced age, I must have just mis-remembered the Bigtime Twitter Anti’s proper name and that this guy must be someone else. But no. Here it is again, confirmed by your own good writing. Well, well, well.

    But if, as you say, it’s a “tactic,” then I can’t for the life of me see what tobacco control has to gain by having a few of its minions suddenly coming over all tolerant and anti-State-bullying when they’ve previously been some of the most enthusiastic applauders of it. It’s not, after all, as if they’re really “swapping sides” and coming out with statements like: “Crikey, I can’t believe that I’ve been so wrong all these years about smoking/the smoking ban/SHS” etc. As you say, even the likes of Seigel and Bates still can’t help shooting out the odd little vicious barb which reveals the true colours behind the new, “reasonable” image.

    Perhaps it isn’t an official “tactic” at all, but merely a form of self-protection. After all, if the extremist antis who populate the anti-smoking movement get their way and get all evidence of smoking banished from sight/sound/smell everywhere, then there really isn’t anything meaningful for them to moan/campaign about any more, is there? And if there’s nothing to campaign about, then there’s no further reason for the State (or, indeed, the likes of the Pharma companies) to give them funding, either. Ironically, the anti-smoking movement’s very existence – from the manufacturers of NRT, to groups like ASH, to the NHS smoking-cessation groups, right down to the little drone-footsoldiers voluntarily combing the internet night after night for opportunities to make spiteful anti comments on any smoking-related article they can find – depends very heavily on people continuing to smoke, and continuing to smoke visibly and obviously. It’s like Leggy has often pointed out on his blog – if a charidee supposedly “fighting” some ailment or another happens to stumble across a wonderful, cheap, safe cure for that illness, then overnight its very raison d’etre vanishes into thin air. Hence the reason why CRUK has – even after over a century of “research” – failed so roundly to find anything equating to a decent cure for even the most minor forms of cancer, and, quite honestly, probably never will. If it did then it’d be – literally – history within weeks.

    So, if smoking is banished from sight, then all those many and varied anti-smoking entities start to look, well, quite frankly, just a bit silly and pointless. Who’s going to be interested in any group campaigning stop something that no-one sees (or smells), or even knows whether it’s happening or not? We should all, politicians in particular, remember that. In this day and age, anti-smokers need us for their very survival. Perhaps the fact is that the likes of Seigal, Bates and (now) Chapman have simply been amongst the first of the anti brigade to see it.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Do they need us? As far as I can see, they just move on to a new field (alcohol, food, whatever) and use their playbook there. They just cross out ‘tobacco’ and replace it with ‘alcohol’ or ‘chocolate’. So “X is the new tobacco”..

    • Barry Homan says:

      Ya know, it’s kinda like what Hitler said: “If the Jew didn’t exist, we would have to invent him.”

      • Edgar says:

        Hitler said that? Source? Cripes, the name of Hitler is used to demonise everything: if Hitler had not existed, we would have had to invent him.

  2. Frank, don’t forget Bill Godshall. He remains firmly antismoking but he’s become a raving pro-vaper. I’ve seen several boards where people have called him on his denouncing of antivaping tactics that he supported so strongly when used for antismoking purposes.

    Heh, Jax just gave me an idea: the Vapers should start talking about their secret “invisible vaping pens and pencils” that emit no visible vapor and look like ordinary pens and pencils that people are just “chewing on” as they write and think! LOL! Imagine the furor on airplanes as stewardesses have to try sucking on people’s pencils to determine if they’re actually pencils or forbidden secret stealth vaping devices! Grade school children will have all writing implements confiscated!


    • Mike if you hadn’t noticed the vaping companies seem to have highered as many anti-smokers to work for them as they could get………….It appears even siegel and a few others might be on their take as well. Then they moved into facebook moving into even our own groups trying to taker over or get in tight as they could with us. All Ive seen is backstabbing and some of our own going and pushing the vaping shit across the board at our sacrifice. Not quite completely but enuf so to many of them are suddenly getting websites and possibly some donations for a lawsuit,not naming names here either.

      • waltc says:

        Stop it please, Harley. Your insinuations here are over the top, wrong and divisive. To impugn her character and motivations is way beyond the pale and unworthy of you.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I’ve not forgotten him. And I noticed he’s become pro-vaping.

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    No, they never do stop. They wanted a tobacco free world by 2015. They missed the target and are now working double time to eradicate smoking. The problem is vaping has exposed their lies to a larger segment of the public and more people are questioning their lies. Sure, there are still may die hards and they have been able to implement many new bans including bans in bars and casinos in New Orleans, patio bans in Toronto (and all Ontario), outdoor bans in Australia, and the now popular bans on smoking in cars with children). The problem is the data is starting to leak out that there is no risk from second hand smoke, and that the majority of cancers are due to random mutation not lifestyle choices. Some of the antismokers no doubt see the future of diminishing returns and want to retain influence so they are backing away from the lies. It will be interesting to see where this goes. Consider that momentum is growing for cigar bar exemptions in New Orleans–this even before the recent ban is implemented.

  4. waltc says:

    I think it’s self-protection. They’re afraid that the extreme nonsense being spread by their peers will bring down the whole house of cards whose foundations they themselves built. They defend their own foundational lies by protesting the more Indefensible lies. Siegel is scared to death that his baby is gonna get tossed with the bath water .

    • Rose says:

      I’m convinced of it, they are terrified that with the later nonsense, the “movement” will lose credibility, Dr Siegel has said so repeatedly.

  5. waltc says:

    This is Audrey’s lawsuit that needs support. Contribute if you can. Every dime helps. As Audrey puts it:

    And so I start…. (left with no other shameless option). Please share.

  6. Nightlight says:

    It seems my pro-smoker FB activity had triggered someone to rat on me to FB for using pseudonym there and they won’t log me in any more unless I provide my real name. As result, I decided to drop FB (they were a time drain anyway). So, to all my smoking friends, I won’t be going there any more.

  7. audreysilk says:

    Chapman’s position on outdoor bans is hardly new. I think people either haven’t heard or don’t remember that Chapman has said this as far back as 2007:

    “To me, ‘going too far’ in [secondhand smoke] policy means efforts premised on reducing harm to others, which ban smoking in outdoor settings such as ships’ decks, parks, golf courses, beaches, outdoor parking lots, hospital gardens, and streets.

    “[W]hile tobacco smoke has its own range of recognisable smells, there are few differences between the physics and chemistry of tobacco smoke and smoke generated by the incomplete combustion of any biomass, whether it be eucalyptus leaves, campfire logs, gasoline, or meat on a barbeque. Secondhand smoke is not so uniquely noxious that it justifies extraordinary controls of such stringency that zero tolerance outdoors is the only acceptable policy.”

    — Going Too Far? Exploring the Limits of Smoking Regulation, William Mitchell Law Review, October 23, 2007

    I’ve always pointed to this quote when saying that sometimes the antis are useful at appropriate times. How does it hurt us to point to these moments at moments (outdoor ban proposals) where we can say “even the most rabid of anti-smokers have said so.”

    • audreysilk says:

      Ah yes, wait, it goes back even further than that, to the year 2000:
      Banning smoking outdoors is seldom ethically justifiable
      SIMON CHAPMAN, Editor

      • Good research Audrey………commendable and the bio mass comparison is one Ive been punching for over 3 years now. Nail their asses with it everywhere.

        • Congratulations cookout fans you’ve just survived being around second hand smoke for 120,000 years of equivalent exposure!

          Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests. A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes.

          Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer. The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages.”

          Even the CANCER SOCIETY has benefit cookouts yet they push for smoking bans! Talk about being Hipocrits! Heres a real sweety pie of a special hype The Dumbest Fundraising Event Ever? American Cancer Society Joins BBQ Meat “Cook Off” to Raise Money for Cancer Research NaturalNews)

          Texans living in Navarro County are about to win a collective award for being the dumbest people in the world when it comes to diet and nutrition: They are hosting a BBQ meat cook-off to raise money for — get this — cancer research!

          Even the Governor of Kentucky and all the Anti-smoking Activists were at Fancy Farm for the big Political Cook Off Cook Out yet they too survived Inhaling 10S OF BILLIONS worth of equal cigarette smoke.

          Even there own Human exhaled Breath creates hundreds of the same chemicals found in tobacco smoke yet we arent outlawing HUMANS FROM INDOOR SPACES………

          Human Exhaled Air Analytics…” Buszewski et al, Biomed. Chromatogr. 21: 553–566 (2007)

        • Ive read that the normal inhalation each day by humans is equal in chemical absorbtion of 14-15 packs a day of cigs………..that’s just from normal clean so called air we all inhale minus the nicotine everything in tobacco smoke is already in the air itself.

        • As far as Im concerned this anti-smoking war is pretty much over,they don’t have a leg to stand on against facts. That leaves only hate as the justification for anti-smoking laws.

    • Rose says:

      I remember that one for his evocation of the scent of eucalyptus, Audrey.

      “The smell of burning eucalyptus always transports me to my childhood”

      But this version is a lot easier to read.


      “My final concern about the current excesses in secondhand smoke policy is that we risk undermining the much needed case for smokefree indoor policies in most parts of the world where smoking remains a normal, unremarkable and unregulated activity.”

      “Opponents of clean indoor air will be able to point to dubious “endgame” advocacy in nations which have successfully introduced indoor smoking bans, and invoke slippery slope precedents that advocates actually want to ban smoking “everywhere”

      “This may unfairly brand tobacco control advocates as clandestine extremists with agendas which abandon all proportionality in the formulation of policy.”

  8. magnetic01 says:

    The major point to be noted is that Captain Pipsqueak, Simon Crapman, is a rabid antismoker. Crapman occasionally points out that there are even bigger nut cases than himself in the antismoking “movement”. He has openly questioned the soundness of “thirdhand smoke danger” and outdoor smoking bans. As others have noted, Crapman’s concern, like Siegel’s, is that the more extreme and absurd claims and demands coming from TC will bring his beloved “movement” into disrepute.

    Crapman has long held that he does not support outdoor smoking bans because they lack a scientific basis concerning harm to nonsmokers.

    In the following article, Crapman reiterates his position that he does not support outdoor bans except in al-fresco dining areas (So there’s an exception already concerning al-fresco dining areas even though there’s no evidence of harm). Although he does not agree with such bans, he does not question the mental state of those proposing/instituting such bans, i.e., bigotry. He spends most of the article reinforcing TC propaganda, e.g., “no safe level”. And, of course, Crapman has to indulge in his incoherent analogies:
    “Someone smoking next to me while I eat lunch outdoors is not going to really harm me, but the imposition is unpleasant in the same way as loud music away from music venues or dog faeces underfoot.”

    In this same 2012 article Crapman attempts to distance himself from proposed outdoor smoking bans at his University of Sydney:
    Last year, my university debated the introduction of a ban on smoking on all areas of its campuses, after the senate alumni representative and Herald columnist Peter FitzSimons led the charge. To the surprise of some, I spoke against banning it entirely. I supported bans near buildings, because of significant smoke drift into offices, and in outdoor eating areas, because of the sardine-like proximities and the easy option for smokers to move away.
    But I wanted nothing of banning it on the big campus boulevards or lawn areas. I know of no evidence that the fleeting encounters you can get from walking past a smoker in a wide-open space can cause any disease. The campus is now smoke-free, save for four outdoor smoking zones.

    This is part of his “I don’t approve of outdoor smoking bans in general”. Now here’s the thing. While Crapman claims he does not support outdoor smoking bans (including at university campuses), he is, again, lying. This is an [Australian] advocacy manual for instituting smoking bans at universities, beginning with a few [inconvenient] designated smoking areas, eventually followed by a complete smoking ban on the entire campus. Lo and behold, there’s Crapman’s signature to the plan (p.2).
    Guide For A Tobacco Free Campus

    As far as I’m aware, most, if not all, universities in Australia now have campus-wide smoking bans.

    Methinks Captain Pipsqueak speak with fork tongue.

  9. magnetic01 says:

    Even in the current article in question, Crapman takes the opportunity to peddle antismoking:
    First, most of the population does not like being exposed to tobacco smoke.

    That’s a loaded statement promoted as a self-evident, timeless “truth”. It certainly wasn’t the case a few decades ago. If there is now a much larger proportion of the population that does not like being exposed to tobacco smoke – even outdoors, it has been produced by a few decades of State-sponsored, relentless, inflammatory antismoking propaganda in which Crapman has played a very significant role.

  10. magnetic01 says:

    “Opponents of clean indoor air will be able to point to dubious “endgame” advocacy in nations which have successfully introduced indoor smoking bans, and invoke slippery slope precedents that advocates actually want to ban smoking “everywhere”
    “This may unfairly brand tobacco control advocates as clandestine extremists with agendas which abandon all proportionality in the formulation of policy.”

    Those statements should be hammered with the Godber Blueprint. The Godber Blueprint clearly shows that those responsible for the current antismoking crusade, from the very outset, were/are prohibitionists, just like their prohibitionist predecessors. The very least these prohibitionists had in mind was to have smoking banned indoors and out with the only refuge for smoking being the smoker’s home (and then only if there was no protest from other inhabitants).

    Depicting antismoking activists as prohibitionists that want smoking banned “everywhere” is not a wayward “slippery slope” argument. It’s a completely fair appraisal. Tobacco control advocates (i.e., prohibitionists) are clandestine extremists with agendas which abandon all proportionality in the formulation of policy as has been demonstrated by their conduct over the last 30 years. We now have the intent and the history of bans (and other punitive measures) to support this appraisal. The hard-line, “full” prohibitionists want to take it even one step further into the complete eradication of tobacco-use from the world.

  11. magnetic01 says:

    Prohibition by “salami slices”, i.e., tobacco control advocates (i.e., prohibitionists) are clandestine extremists with agendas which abandon all proportionality in the formulation of policy. Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.

    The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
    Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

    While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.

    On top of all of this, there are now instances where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate taxes.

    At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing “social engineering” (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies peddling their useless “nicotine replacement” products. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American “model”) and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).

  12. Rose says:

    I can’t wait to see this.

    “A Nazi-themed troupe of dancers and a 16-tonne Second World War tank gatecrashed the start of Ukip’s spring party conference in Kent.

    Performers in hot pants, jackboots and Nazi insignia high-kicked to the Springtime For Hitler tune as delegates arrived.

    The dancers, from Mel Brooks’s musical The Producers, caused the scene outside Ukip’s conference venue – the Winter Gardens in Margate .

    The seven-strong troupe of female dancers performed a choreographed routine as Springtime For Hitler blared from a PA system on the tank turret.

    It emerged that the cast were in Margate to promote the new touring production of Brooks’s acclaimed musical comedy, which opens in Bromley on March 7.”

    No genuinely, I know should be outraged, but I haven’t stopped giggling yet.

  13. magnetic01 says:

    Does this sound like eugenics?

    Russian Lawmakers Propose Banning Women Under 40 from Smoking

    • Rose says:

      Very much so.

      By strange coincidence the BBC has just announced that compensation is to be paid to the survivors of the last time doctors and scientists went feral.

      Virginia eugenics victims compensated for sterilisation

      “Lawmakers in the US state of Virginia have agreed to pay compensation to people who were forcibly sterilised by the authorities decades ago.
      Victims will be paid $25,000 (£16,000) following a legal fight by campaigners.
      Along with more than 30 other US states, Virginia once operated a sterilisation programme for individuals deemed undesirable or mentally unsound.

      More than 8,000 Virginians were operated on between the 1920s and 1970s.

      The state’s programme was said to be the model for the Nazi eugenics policies introduced by Adolf Hitler when he aspired to create a master race.”

    • Rose says:

      “Smoking hurts women’s ability to have healthy children and it ruins the genetic basis of the nation,” said Rossiyskaya Gazeta, quoting a scientific report linked to the draft laws.

      “Smoking women often cannot conceive and carry a baby because nicotine is killing the fertility of women’s eggs.”

      It’s not looking good for sales of NRT.

      • magnetic01 says:

        That’s standard eugenics language – reproductive hygiene – that was heard early last century in America and Germany, including the intent to control/engineer.

      • magnetic01 says:

        “Smoking women often cannot conceive and carry a baby because nicotine is killing the fertility of women’s eggs.”
        It’s not looking good for sales of NRT.

        What’s the nicotine “doing”? Someone’s wrong:

        Infants born to women who used NRT for smoking cessation in pregnancy were more likely to have unimpaired development.

      • magnetic01 says:

        Here’s some entirely made-up inflammatory trash from early last century:

        Early in the 1900’s it was some church groups (e.g., Methodist Episcopal Church’s Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals) that considered nicotine as a “killer of babies.” The “controversy” was picked up by the New York Times in two stories. In one story it was claimed that 40 babies from a New York maternity hospital “suffered from tobacco heart caused by the cigaret smoking of their mothers.” In the other it was claimed that “sixty percent of all babies born of cigaret-smoking mothers die before they reach the age of two, due primarily to nicotine poisoning.” (quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.53; Journal of the American Medical Association, 1929, p.123) The American Tobacco Trust was viewed by the church board as “conscienceless baby-killers” that by promoting cigarettes to women were directing a “lying murderous campaign.”

      • magnetic01 says:

        More recent trash:

        From the 4th World Conference on Smoking & Health (1979) (see Godber Blueprint). It’s an insight into how antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists “reason”:

        “Donovan’s most interesting remarks related to smoking and pregnancy. He
        admitted that he couldn’t explain how or why smoking harmed the fetus but
        suggested that, instead of worrying about such fine points, women be told that
        all unborn children of smoking women will be hurt. Donovan urged every
        participant to go back to their countries and publish estimates of the
        lethality of smoking and pregnancy based on the number of pregnant smokers. He
        urged this as an effective method to get women to stop smoking.”

        This is the sort of inflammatory trash that has been fed to the public for the last 30 years. Facts don’t matter. All that matters to antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists is what needs to be said repeatedly to terrorize women into antismoking conformity. It gets into the very nasty phase where, beyond just terrorizing, legislation is enacted to coerce conformity.

    • The myth of smoking during pregnancy being harmful

      Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:51 CDT

      In about 1999 I was asked to analyze the data of pregnant women with respect to smoking for a major health insurance company. They were running a campaign to get pregnant women to stop smoking and they expected to find interesting data to support their case.

      I used to teach college courses covering the topic. The text books said that smoking causes underweight premature babies. Because of this babies of smoking mothers are more likely to have birth defects. With alcohol, two drinks a day was considered safe, but with tobacco, there was no safe threshold. I thought this was rather strange. You smoke one cigarette while pregnant and you are more likely to have birth defects? Even for a hard core health fanatic that is difficult to believe.

      Here is what was found in the data. Babies of smoking mothers average weight was 3232 grams (7.1 lbs.). Babies of non-smoking mothers averaged 3398 grams (7.5 lbs.). That is about a half pound difference and it is statistically significant. Seven pounds is a good healthy birth weight that does not set off any alarms. Babies are considered underweight if they are less than 2270 grams (5 lbs.). 4.5% of smoking mothers babies were underweight and 3.3% of non-smoking mothers babies were underweight. This difference is not significant. There is no indication here of a health risk from smoking based on weight.

      The other risk factor is length of term. Normal gestation is 253 days. 4% of smoking mothers did not go to term and 7.8% of non-smoking mothers did not go to term. Smoking mothers did better than non-smoking mothers but the difference was not significant. There was obviously no risk from reduced term for smoking mothers.

      Because the non-smoking mothers had heavier babies one would expect more C-Sections from the non-smoking mothers. There were about 20% more. This is significant at the .05 level but not the .01 level so you could argue the significance either way depending on your bias. The data here is limited because only 5% of pregnant women smoked but the trend for smoking mothers was toward less babies retained in the hospital, less C-Sections, insignificantly fewer pre-term deliveries and an insignificant increase in clinically underweight babies.

      This data can be explained by assuming that when pregnant women are stressed, they self medicate to relieve the stress. Non-smoking women tend to eat more causing the baby to be larger and more difficult to deliver. This can also cause other problems. Smoking women tend to light up when under stress. This is less harmful to the baby than over-eating. For this reason smoking mothers tended to have better outcomes for baby and mother. They also cost less for the insurance company.

      You might be interested in knowing that this information was not used. I was told that the medical insurance business is highly regulated by the government. The company was not allowed to tell the truth about these results even though it was better for the insurance company and for the patients.

      I do not think these results suggest that women should start smoking when they get pregnant. I do think it indicates that it is very poor practice to try to get smoking mothers to stop smoking when they get pregnant.
      About me

      I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology and have worked in both research and teaching. I am a health nut and do not endorse smoking or care to be around people smoking. I was shocked by these results. My bias if any is certainly against these results. However I think it is horrible to withhold information form people and intentionally give them bad advice to advance a political agenda.

  14. Frank Davis says:

    Lots of good Chapman quotes today. I think I might start a new reference page for them. “Things They Said”? One of my favourites is Deborah Arnott’s “Smokers will be exiled to the outdoors.” So much so that I keep it in the right margin.

  15. Frank Davis says:

    Nigel Farage talking at CPAC

    As usual, most of what he said was right on the nail. But not all:

    “I reckon the earlier people get up of a morning to go to work, the higher their propensity to vote for UKIP.” Ha, ha! I can see what he means, of course, but it’ll never be true of me.

    He also mentioned 3 people who’d been arrested (on the streets of America?) yesterday. Who were they?

  16. roobeedoo2 says:

    Simon Chapman reminds me of Mickey Mouse as the sorcerer’s apprentice in ‘Fantasia’.

  17. cherie79 says:

    I would never have got through a three day labour without about 60 cigarettes! That was in the happy 60s when you could smoke in hospitals. Baby was fine when eventually delivered! and continues fine all these years later.

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.