Ignorant, or Lying

From Chris Snowdon. Page 80 of the Tobacco Atlas published this week shows this:


Of Sharing The Tools, which suggests fries, liquor, and cola as new packaging targets, Chris Snowdon writes: “Slippery slope? Nah!”

Yet at 1 minute 20 seconds into the YouTube clip below, which dates from last week:

Simon Clark: “If I was in the food and drink industries, I’d be very concerned that plain packaging may be introduced in this country, because clearly alcohol and sugar will be next.”

Deborah Arnott: “These are just the same old tired Tobacco Industry arguments that always get rolled out.”

Either she’s ignorant, or she’s lying.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Ignorant, or Lying

  1. I think the “ignorance” is a given if we look at her track record, but on the other hand I’d have to say the lying probably is too. While that particular page may be the most blatant expression of the expansion intention it’s not like it’s actually new: I’m sure I’ve seen at least a half dozen hints or more-than-hints in that direction over the past ten years.

    – MJM

    • Back in the 80s I remember the argument from anheiser Bush screaming that what they do to tobacco they can do to any of the rest of us. Bush beer was being shook down by Jessie Jackson at the time only Busch fought back and got detectives to dig the dirt on Jackson and jacksons push rainbow coalition quietly disappeared and left the beer masters alone……….it was only just beginning using the civil rights act to shake down American companies to get concessions and control of them back then,it appears they got control of most of them now.

    • Jude says:

      Ignorance yes, but ignorance of the deliberate and vocal kind. The lies have become so common place that hearing any truth from those in tobacco control would actually be far more shocking. My daughter gave me a T-shirt with the words, “I see your lips moving, but all I hear is Blah Blah Blah” on the front of it. It perfectly sums up the way I feel when I hear or see anyone from tobacco control speak, as well as other assorted wanna be fascists and narcissists.

  2. beobrigitte says:

    She is lying – and she knows it.

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    Of course she is lying! Other in the movement may be ignorant, but those farming the agenda and developing the propaganda are certainly lying.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Should have read others in the movement and framing agenda (sometimes spell check like tobacco control has a mind of its own).

      In other news, a just released RAND study shows that banning fast food restaurants did not cut obesity in Los Angeles (See “Ban on fast-food eateries in South L.A. hasn’t cut obesity, study says,” http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-food-study-20150319-story.html ). Of course the lifestyle control ‘healthists’ pushed this through in the interest of health and improving health for the poor (read African-American). Also note the public health analysts are claiming victory and asking for more time for the impact to catch up (sounds like plain packs and smoking bans).

  4. waltc says:

    Tho I admit to being semi-innumerate, wouldn’t it be true that the fewer percentage of people dying from communicable diseases (because of vaccinations, better hygiene, better anti-infectives) the greater percentage would die of other things? Just mathematically speaking? If every germ and virus and parasite were eradicated overnight and zero percent died of anything they caused, then 100% of deaths would be from noncommunicabke diseases. No?

    Tangentially, they could then blame all 100% of deaths on Lifestyle, but once they’d eradicated all Lifestyles, how would they explain the deaths?

    As for Arnott, her sites are narrowly focused. I don’t think she sees or bothers to see beyond tobacco, or cares what does or doesn’t happen to sugar or civil liberties ; Talk about that stuff is beside-the-point irrelevance. Not worth her time.

  5. nisakiman says:

    …wouldn’t it be true that the fewer percentage of people dying from communicable diseases (because of vaccinations, better hygiene, better anti-infectives) the greater percentage would die of other things?

    That’s absolutely right, Walt, and typifies the statistical legerdemain that Tobacco Control uses all the time to blind people to the realities.

  6. ” but once they’d eradicated all Lifestyles, how would they explain the deaths?”

    A better smoker than me once pointed out how terribly sad it is for all those poor, responsible, healthy nonsmokers…. when they die of nothing.

    – MJM

  7. John Watson says:

    If they are half as successful at wiping out NCD’s as the are at wiping out Malaria in Africa then they’ll probably wipe out the human race! Of course If Margaret Chan’s efforts at stopping Ebola by victimising smokers instead is anything to go by we’re all dead anyway.

  8. Lokks like Nochelle is preaching from the new NAZI bible verse by verse from above

    No sugar, no butter, no oil, no spice , no alcohol, no tobacco ..
    What other things will they ban in the future ?

    Mrs. Obama: Americans Should Drink Unsweetened Tea

    By Todd Starnes The First Lady of these United States is now urging Americans to stop drinking sweet tea. Yes – friends – you heard correctly. Mrs. Obama has…


  9. c777 says:

    The Hags lying she has form.

  10. idenisovich says:


  11. WTF? EPA Wants To Regulate Backyard BBQing

    By Brian Anderson, March 17, 2015.

    The Environmental Protection Agency has always been a real pain in the ass to industry, progress, and working people everywhere. Under Obama, the unelected regulatory agency has been downright fascist in its efforts to reduce the quality of life for all Americans. Case and point: the EPA is looking at ways to regulate the backyard barbeque experience.

    Fox News reports that the EPA is looking at the possibility of forcing backyard cooks to install grease traping systems as well as “catalytic” filters for grill emissions.

    The EPA is funding a $15,000 University of California-Riverside study to look at the particulate emissions you breathe when grilling over an open flame. Along with the drip tray, the emission removal system includes the use of a “secondary air filtration system is composed of a single pipe duct system which contains a specialized metal filter, a metal fan blade, a drive shaft, and an accompanying power system with either a motorized or manual method,” according to study.

    Think it can’t happen? Parts of California (Bay Area mostly) already regulate when people can cook outdoors, and there even more regulations being pushed.

    Thankfully, BBQers have a champion in office. Missouri State Senator Eric Schmitt launched a campaign against excessive EPA regulations:

    On Monday, State Senator Eric Schmitt (R) from St. Louis kicked off a #porksteakrebellion after he discovered the EPA is funding a study on propane grill emissions that suggest pit masters use a special tray to catch grease drippings and a “catalytic” filtration system to reduce air pollution, reports Fox News KTVI.

    “The idea that the EPA wants to find their way into our back yards, where we’re congregating with our neighbors, having a good time, on the 4th of July, barbecuing pork steak or hamburgers, is ridiculous and it’s emblematic of agency that’s sort of out of control,” Schmitt said.

    In case it isn’t obvious, Schmitt is a Republican, and he’s 100% right. It is beyond ridiculous that a government agency is looking into clamping down on backyard cooking. Is barbequing really a major source of air pollution? Of course it isn’t, so why the hell would Obama’s EPA even be looking at something like this? The quick answer is because he is a dick.

    This is completely in line with the democrat agenda to control every aspect of our lives. It also seems to be part of a larger campaign to turn Americans into vegetarians and get us all to accept man-made global warming. The government recently recommended that we all but eliminate meat form our diets and as you know the lefties insist that beef production is a major contributor to climate change.

    Yesterday I wrote that Obama was trying to stop public funding of sports stadiums because he hates things that guys like. This is completely true. Democrats despise anything that brings pleasure to men: Guns, hunting, cars, beer, sports, you name it. If guys like it, the democrats will try to regulate it, tax it or ban it. It’s not really a shock that they are now going after backyard barbequing because men like cooking over an open flame.

    I reject this hybrid driving, no sports watching, disarmed civilian, steamed vegetable, alcohol-free liberal distopian future. I’m going to take my 1971 Dodge Charger down to the store, pick up some beer and steaks, fire up the grill, and celebrate American freedom while I watch hockey all night. And if the EPA shock troops come to shut me down, I’ll be ready for that too.


    • 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) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

  12. garyk30 says:

    TC tend to tell half-lies and innuendos,and the world is ignorant for not pointing out those deliberate fabrications.

    For instance:
    Arnott said “1/2th die because of their smoking’.
    Simon should have said:
    “Remarkable, she has just said that only 1/2th of smokers’ deaths from lung cancer are caused by smoking!”

  13. Obama’s EPA Nazi Plans To Crack Down on How Long You Shower

    Next time you’re enjoying a hot shower, don’t.

    The Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to crack down on shower sneaks. You know who you are. You’re the type of selfish person who steps into a hotel shower and lingers too long.

    Maybe you’re trying to get clean. Maybe you’re shaving. Maybe you enjoy the sensory blast of instant hot water on your skin that isn’t going on a home water-heater bill.

    The EPA doesn’t care about such frivolous things. Its concern is the amount of water you are “wasting.” Whatever it is, it’s too much.

    So, the agency has issued a grant to the University of Tulsa to develop a shower water usage monitor by Aug. 14. Assuming market support, one would be installed on every hotel room’s shower head to measure water consumption and radio it somewhere.


  14. Some French bloke says:

    “Ignorant, or Lying”

    May be it’s just a case of false dichotomy.
    It seems to me that the primary purpose of any lie is to conceal one of three things: ignorance, the truth (or at least some significant element of it), but more elaborate types may conceal yet another lie.

  15. jaxthefirst says:

    I think she’s lying, but, perhaps surprisingly, I honestly think that she doesn’t know it. Maybe she did once upon a time, but not any more. I truly believe that the whole Tobacco Control movement has now reached such a fever pitch – buoyed as it is with the enormous successes that it has enjoyed in such a short time and over such a large proportion of the globe – that it now genuinely believes that “if we say it, then it’s true.” So that, in a sense, they “make up” their own truth as they go along. If they decided it would be a good ploy to declare that “smoking makes your hair turn green” then the moment those words had spouted from their lips, they’d 100% believe it to be a cast-iron fact. Truly, they would.

    Like so many third-world leaders, drunk on the heady brew of unfettered power, (because, let’s be honest, no-one in any position of power has ever pulled them up short and told them to get back into their box or indicated that they’re trying to go too far), they’ve become dangerously delusional.

    It’s why, despite all the evidence around them, they just can’t connect the sudden and catastrophic decline in the hospitality industry with the smoking ban, despite the suspicious correlation of the date of the ban with the immediate and sudden collapse – it just doesn’t “compute” any more because they’ve now become so convinced of their own oft-repeated mantras that they simply cannot comprehend that their beliefs are in any way erroneous.

    It’s why, when the evidence shows that plain packaging in Australia was swiftly followed by (a) an increase in young people smoking and (b) a huge surge in illicit cigarettes, they simply can’t countenance that there’s any connection between the two.

    It’s why they still believe, in their power-addled little minds, that their aim is to “help” people, and that everybody who smokes cigarettes is secretly desperate for that “help.” They’ve said it, so it must be true, is their way of thinking.

    It’s why they believe that everyone sees them as crusading heroes and loves them, just as the likes of Idi Amin, Col Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein, and President Mugabe can claim, with a straight face and genuine belief, that “their people” love them and support them and look upon them as a father-figure, even as they systematically beat, starve and torture them to death. It’s exactly the same mindset; it’s a form of mental illness which, left unchecked, simply never stops doing whatever it has to, to perpetuate its own existence and to enable it to believe its own fantasy-version of reality. A sort of group megalomania which, in its own mind, is always right, under all circumstances, with no exceptions. Ever. Scary stuff.

    So, of course, they can’t believe that the “slippery slope” exists, even as new prohibitionist groups spring up all around them, targeting different vices but nonetheless mirroring to the last letter anti-tobacco’s own template – even sometimes bragging about it – because that is a criticism of anti-smoking. And that can’t be allowed, because that criticism, even just that one, if permitted, would cause the delusion to come crashing down.

    And it goes right down the line. Some of the minions are even more personally wedded to “the faith” than the Big Cheeses are, because, as we all know, there’s a hefty money incentive for the Big Cheeses that isn’t there for the minions. It’s why so many of their most devoted drone camp-followers in comments sections become so inflamed with rage and incapable of engaging in rational debate – resorting instead, almost instantaneously, to personal insults and hateful, highly emotionally-charged comments – when challenged in even the most minor and questioning way. They, literally, have become incapable of – perhaps even terrified of – countenancing the fact that their most preciously-held view might actually be wrong. At an instinctive level, of course, they know that their reality is a fragile one, easily shattered by the evidence of the world around them which they have to share with other, more realistic folks, but the knowledge of this fragility is why they over-react so defensively to any criticism of any anti-smoking measure. It’s crazy, of course, and it doesn’t fit with “real life” where there is nothing – absolutely nothing – which is “all bad” or “all good.” No system in respect of any area of life is universally good, or bad, for all 7 billion of the people alive in the world today. That’s just not how life is. And yet their people cling onto the oddly incongruous idea that whereas there’s “good and bad” in everything else in our complicated world (something which they seem perfectly able to comprehend), All Things Anti-Smoking – those, and those alone – are universally good and perfect and wonderful for absolutely everybody, always and forever. It’s the most perfect example of Orwellian double-think imaginable. A kind of voluntary mass-hypnosis for the gullible and the nasty.

    So, yes, Arnott was lying, but no, she doesn’t know it. Because of the delusion. I doubt very much that she believes that there was anything strange or unrealistic about her comments and, I suspect, would be surprised to find that anyone else found them to be so. As we all know, she, along with many other TC-adherents, has to believe that people only disagree with her version of reality when they are paid to do so by Big Bad Tobacco; I expect that she believes that, should Simon stop working for Forest, then he’d “get on side” with her in an instant and, relieved of the obligation to toe the Tobacco Company line, would immediately join forces with her in condemning smokers to hell and encouraging more and more anti-smoker bullying regulations and harassment. The idea that anyone simply experiences life differently from her just isn’t allowed to enter her head, for fear of upsetting the artificially-induced reality that she has created inside it.

    So, is she evil, or is she just not well? Perhaps, again surprisingly, I’d be inclined to plump for “just not well,” end of. Indeed, if she wasn’t such an objectionable piece of work who has, along with similarly-minded bullies, managed to make a significantly negative impact on my life personally, I’d almost feel sorry for her!

    • Rose says:

      Very well put, Jax, I couldn’t agree more.

      I think it started out as just a job and she said the words she was given to say, but after 14 years of doing just that, I wouldn’t like to guess what her thinking is now.
      I couldn’t cope with being held responsible for all the misery and loss that anti-tobacco has caused to people that she knows have no means of reply, dismissed as tobacco industry plants or “it’s just the drug speaking”
      Very similar to the silencing tactics that Trevor Phillips was talking about the other day.

      I almost feel sorry for her too.
      From another point of view, I’m just so glad it wasn’t me.

    • Jude says:

      Exactly the same mindset as religious fanatics have. Those in tobacco control are the crazy fundamentalists fanatics of the new “healthism” religion. They are like the Westborough (spelling?) Baptists of “public health”.

      • Rose says:

        Not exactly, she got paid.

        Over at Ash – Action On Smoking and Health – Ogden’s opposite number is Deborah Arnott. She was fond of the occasional cigarette until 2003, when she decided to leave a job in TV production and devote her working life to the anti-smoking struggle. “I smoked Silk Cut,” she says, “which probably shows my age.”

        A previous job

        How the FSA got it wrong
        Deborah Arnott – 2009

        “Some 10 years ago, I was employed by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to set up a consumer education department to enable the new watchdog to meet its obligation to increase public understanding of the financial system.”

        “I left the FSA more than five years ago and went to run Action on Smoking and Health – a much simpler job with the simple objective of working to protect people from the harm caused by tobacco.

        But I learned a salutary lesson while at the FSA, which is that consumer education can never substitute for an effective regulatory system that protects both consumers and the financial system.”


No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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.