Sick Of These Bastards

Dick Puddlecote has already covered this (including a quote from me from an earlier occasion). Professor Gerald Hastings wants alcohol to to have its own version of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control:

“To deal with that, the route that was taken was to produce the (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.”

The framework is an international treaty that outlines specific commitments which governments sign up to – such as stopping advertising of tobacco, having cigarettes in plain packaging and taxation of tobacco. It was a hailed as a landmark for public health when it came into force in 2005, and hailed as one of the first global treaties to tackle a chronic, non-communicable disease. Nearly 170 countries have signed up to it.

Hastings said a similar treaty should now been put place for alcohol – but added that WHO could only act if its member countries asked it to do so.

He added it was not about “demonising” business, but recognising that companies prioritised the interest of shareholders – which sometimes came into conflict with “wider senses of value”.

On the issue of voluntary regulation of the drinks industry, he said: “That is like a farmer going to a fox and saying can we have a gentleman’s agreement not to eat the chickens? The fox eats chickens – big business goes after profits.

“We can’t expect it to do that and at the same time say also become a charity – it is not going to happen.”

He added: “Scotland has a noble record of being a champion of public health [regarding tobacco], it could do the same with alcohol.

“Scotland can start stirring this pot and getting things moving on it. I think there is an appetite for it – so if Scotland picks this up as we are hosting this major conference, I think that will have a dramatic impact and could not just make things a lot better in Scotland, but could change the world.”

The FCTC also included a clause on protecting workers from secondhand tobacco smoke, which led to the public smoking bans.

An FCAC  (Framework Convention on Alcohol Control) would end up demonising the alcohol producers just like tobacco companies are now demonised. It was also end up demonising drinkers. It would lead to plain packaging of alcohol, and hidden displays. If they can’t can’t find an alcoholic equivalent of secondhand smoke from which workers needed to be protected, they could just invent one, complete with about 500 studies showing that alcohol vapour is lethal at 100 metres. Or they could demand that the chiiildren shouldn’t ever be allowed to see adults drinking. And since children are now allowed in pubs, they could demand that no drinking be allowed inside (or outside) pubs or restaurants, because it “sent the wrong message”.

In the UK, something like 20% of pubs have closed since the smoking ban drove away their smoking customers. The demonisation of alcohol will drive away the rest, and close the remaining 80% of pubs. And that is probably the intended goal.

I’m sick of these bloody people. When are people going to say they’ve had enough of little bastards like Gerald Hastings, and demand they be de-funded/fired/strung up?

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

25 Responses to Sick Of These Bastards

  1. waltc says:

    @ roobedoo, yesterday.
    I saw nothing in your links to show the US or the other countries who attempted to arm the alleged moderate anti-Assad forces were directly or purposely arming ISIS as you and Putin implied. Did a nascent, perhaps inchoate ISIS mingle with and take over from the “moderates?” Likely, but I put that under my rubric of unintended conseqiences of a poorly thought-out policy and, again, a failure to understand Arabs. Again too , I analogize to the Spanish Civil War. In “Homage to Catalonia” Orwell writes about how he joined on the side of the goodguy anti-Franco forces (as Americans joined the vaunted Quinte Brigada) and , like many others, wound up captured and IIRC tortured by the Communists who took over the movement.

    Similarly, an unintended consequence of arming and training Afghan rebels way back when turned out to arm and train what would later become core Al Qaeda, including Osama. Surely not a western intention, rather the result of playing checkers while the others are playing chess.

    As for tobacco-izing alcohol, I say bring it on. The more people they piss off, the sooner they fall. And if not, the bovine population deserves to be herded into ever smaller pens where eventually they may choke on their own cud

  2. wobbler2012 says:

    Sadly they’re not going anywhere, this “public health” con is a right moneyspinner and when places like the BBC parrot their junk science without even questioning it then we really are in the shit. It’s only going to get worse too.

  3. jaxthefirst says:

    “If they can’t find an alcoholic equivalent of secondhand smoke from which workers needed to be protected, they could just invent one.”

    There’d be no need for that, Frank. They’ve already got their equivalent of that most-prized element beloved of prohibitionists the world over – the “innocent bystander” – if they want it, by linking alcohol (as indeed they are already doing) to road deaths, crime, family breakdown, domestic violence etc etc. Non-smoking drinkers play right into their hands with this one, with their oft-repeated argument: “Ah, but there’s no such thing as ‘passive drinking’” – which represents pretty much the only argument that non-smoking drinkers ever come up with when any mention of “look out – you’re next” is made.

    It’s an argument which is oh-so-easily debunked. “No such thing as Passive Drinking” is just so catchy that it almost begs to be used by the prohibitionists, and its beauty lies in the fact that it can be quoted back to drinkers themselves to show them just how wrong they are.

    It’s easy to imagine the poster campaign – here’s just a few (although I’m sure that any good advertising agency could easily come up with plenty more):

    Number 1: A picture of someone lying covered over on the road (i.e. clearly dead), perhaps with a small, child-sized (natch) arm just protruding sadly out, with the blurry images in the background of an ambulance, policemen, a crashed car etc, and the tagline underneath … “No such thing as passive drinking?” Followed by suitably alarming statistics in smaller type “in 2015 xxx fatal vehicle accidents involved alcohol.” We all know the sort of thing.

    Number 2: A small child (holding a teddy bear, natch) cowering on the stairs with the shadow outline on the wall behind him/her of a man assaulting a woman. “No such thing as passive drinking?” + similar alarmist stats.

    Number 3: An elderly (natch) Asian (natch) couple sadly staring at the smashed windows of their small shop, with broken bottles littering the ground around them (maybe even a pool of blood, for good effect). “No such thing as passive drinking?”+ similarly alarmist stats.

    Number 4: An injured elderly (natch) patient in an A&E ward with nurses and doctors around, with blurry images of a mass of drunken youths fighting in the background with police trying to intervene. “No such thing as passive drinking?”+ similarly alarmist stats.

    See how easy it is? Oh, the possibilities for upping the ante on the “innocent bystander” (a.k.a. the “passive” drinker) angle are endless, and just there for the taking. They certainly wouldn’t have to invent anything as hard for people to believe as harmful alcohol fumes, which has the irritating factor of NOT making non-drinkers feel drunk (not a problem for anti-smokers, as smoking doesn’t intoxicate, but it’s a big problem for anti-drinkers, because alcohol does) they’d simply (using the Tobacco Control template, suitably amended), insert into the public’s mind the idea that every social ill in the country is caused by alcohol, in the same way as Tobacco Control has inserted into the public’s mind that every physical ill in the world is caused by smoking and – hey presto – they’ve got the gullible public on a string, and the path forward to bans, restrictions, demonisation and intolerance (and the final nail in the coffin of the real British pub) is clear!

    I’m actually quite surprised that they haven’t started on this angle yet. It’s just sitting there, waiting for some suitable Government funding and then …

    • lysistratatheoriginal says:

      Excellent post, jaxthefirst. And sadly, you’re right.

    • anonymong says:

      That is all too plausible

    • nisakiman says:

      A prescient post, Jax. Yes, that’s the way they will approach it; the MSM will publish their dodgy statistics verbatim without bothering to check them first, and the oh-so-keen-to-be-seen-as-on-message sheeple will swallow the whole thing hook, line and sinker. It’s depressingly predictable, and for as long as these parasites are being government funded the puritan juggernaut will keep rolling on.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Alcohol vapors are carcinogen…………..Don’t let em fool you!

    Reprint from:
    LINK to original article Sometimes these links change or dissapear, so I have reprinted the article below.

    Fumes, Fun, Sunshine and Smoke
    Michael J. McFadden

    Antismokers like to say, ‘There is no known safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.’ They ignore the fact that the same is true for the Class A Carcinogens alcohol and sunshine, both also having “no known safe levels”.

    Sunshine? Is it really that bad? Well, the UN claims 60,000 people die annually from its cancerous effects. Even one quick peek out your window may kill you… if we use the Surgeon General’s smoke exposure standards.

    Antismokers might laugh and say ‘Well, there’s no avoiding sunlight, but you CAN avoid smoke by having bans.’ They forget smoking bans are passed primarily to ‘protect the workers’ and there are many workers forced to serve self-centered Sunners desiring lunches on restaurant patios. Why should those workers be ‘the only ones forced to work in a carcinogenic environment?’ Should patio dining be outlawed? After all, it’s no more necessary to the act of eating than smoking is to the act of drinking.

    Speaking of drinking… Antismokers like to say ‘You’re not forcing others to drink!’, but you certainly are forcing a carcinogen on them. The actual Class A components of a cigarette’s smoke mass only .0005 grams. A standard martini puts out roughly one full gram of alcohol vapor per hour: as much Class A Carcinogen as 2,000 cigarettes!

    See for yourself: pour a good jigger (48 grams) of grain alcohol into a martini glass. Two days later it will be gone. Where did it go? Well, unless your kittycat is a closet tippler, all that nice juicy carcinogen bubbled straight into the air inhaled by you and your family: almost 100,000 cigarettes’ worth.

    Applying the same ‘zero-tolerance’ rules to alcohol as extremists demand for smoke would force us to ban alcohol from restaurants ‘where people are forced to work.’ Alcoholics could be told ‘just step outside for a moment’ between courses to grab a few quick gulps of wine.

    It is not just sunshine and martinis though: think about the deadly popcorn fumes! Recent research indicates that workers exposed to that delicious buttery aroma can lose up to 80% of their lung capacity to bronchiolitis obliterans, a condition that literally obliterates the bronchioles — the lungs’ tiniest airways.

    If ‘first hand exposure’ is that deadly, what about the ‘secondhand exposure’ you and your children get at the movies or while munching microwave popcorn on the couch? Picture hundreds of TV ads showing babies in the womb being force-fed butter flavored popcorn while their tiny computer-animated lungs slowly wither and die. Picture parents being denied custody of their children or losing their jobs because they are ‘popcorn-eaters’.

    The only thing unique about the ‘deadliness’ of secondary tobacco smoke is that a powerful lobby has focused our attention on it and magnified our fears of it. Having a patio lunch may actually be more dangerous than being inside with the smokers. Working in a poorly ventilated non-smoking alcohol-friendly restaurant may be deadlier than working in a well-ventilated smoking casino!

    The hysteria surrounding secondary smoke is deliberately created to pressure smokers to quit, no more, no less. It’s a hysteria fed by media outlets posing as good corporate citizens while making extra bucks from scary headlines. And it’s a hysteria that has ruined the lives and livelihoods of many innocent people.

    Reasonable restrictions on smoking are fine. Voluntary business choices to ban smoking are also fine. But government-mandated universal smoking bans and the social disruption attending them are most definitely not fine. They are not American, and they hurt our lives and our society far more than they help it.

    REFERENCES:

    Sunlight Cancers: http://www.webmd.com/content/article/125/116064.htm

    Alcohol Fumes: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812#105082

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The actual Class A components of a cigarette’s smoke mass only .0005 grams. A standard martini puts out roughly one full gram of alcohol vapor per hour: as much Class A Carcinogen as 2,000 cigarettes!

  5. Joe L. says:

    Whether or not you believe the junk science, you have to wonder why governments are so concerned about preventing non-communicable diseases. Shouldn’t these be the least of their worries/priorities?

    • Jay says:

      Perhaps they’re akin to the inadequate office manager who micromanages the paper clip allocation rather than negotiating a better price for the stationery.

    • Margo says:

      Indeed, it should be, given all the other real problems in the world. This is one of the reasons why I think it’s a big cover-up and always has been: get the people to believe their own bad ways are the cause of their illness, while we go on spewing out the money-making contaminants that are the true cause. If the truth came out, certain industries would have to be closed down.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Joe it isn’t anything about science or mediciene or anything except total domination thru shake down methods to get control of everything……….Its a UN plan and its as old as the 1900s plan. Same modus operendi complete…………carbon copies start with tobacco first the alcohol then this then that etc etc……….the point is when do we say fuck you to them as a population and do as we wabt anyway. They cant lock us all up nor can they shut down every business even though they could care less if they did,but the government revenue bean counters will sure care……….fake so called health savings dollars are imaginary governments love REAL CASH COWS and businesses flourishing in trade….prohibiton destroys all of it.

      • Some French Bloke says:

        total domination thru shake down methods

        For good insights into the mechanations behind the Master Settlement Agreement, and its real nature (the greatest victory ever for Health and Justice, according to the MSM, is in actuality, in typically Orwellian fashion, just the opposite), check the relevant chapters in “Shakedown: How Corporations, Government, and Trial Lawyers Abuse the Judicial Process” by Robert A. Levy (who also authored “Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths”, with Rosalind B. Marimont). Googling shakedown + MSA should lead you to his essay.

  6. nisakiman says:

    Another bit of hysterical scaremongering today in the news:

    A new study has warned that a third of all men currently under the age of 20 in China will eventually die prematurely if they do not give up smoking.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34483448

    There are two points I would bring up here.One is that, as Gary has pointed out in the past, given that they work from an ‘average age’, then obviously, apart from the few who die at exactly that age, 50% of those remaining will die prematurely. The other 50% will of course live longer than ‘average’. Whether or not smoking affects that ‘average’ is moot, but I suspect not.

    The other point is that, as an example, Greece has the highest per capita consumption of cigarettes in the world, bar none (Yay! Come on the Greeks!), with an annual consumption of 2996 cigarettes per adult per year (UK comes in at 73, with an annual consumption of 750. China comes in at a relatively lowly 21, with a consumption of 1711.). Yet Greece is also in among the countries with a high life expectancy, running equal with the UK, Germany, Netherlands and Finland, despite having a very much inferior health system to those countries. Which to my mind rather points to factors other than smoking which dictate longevity. In fact smoking would seem to be an irrelevance when compared to other influences on life expectancy.

    As ever, the results of this ‘study’ (co-authored by one Richard Peto, who I seem to recollect is a fully paid up anti), have been published uncritically and presented as fact by the MSM.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Richard Peto, who I seem to recollect is a fully paid up anti),

      No ordinary anti. He was Richard Doll’s collaborator after Bradford Hill. Doll and Hill were replaced by Doll and Peto for the next quarter century.

      I met the bastard once in a pub in Camden in about 1985. I was smoking at the time, of course. And I knew he had something to do with antismoking (which I knew nothing about, and cared nothing about either). As we talked, we moved further and further apart, as if a force of mutual repulsion was acting between us. We ended up on opposite sides of the near-empty pub. Very odd, really, even at the time.

    • prog says:

      Unusually, the beeb is allowing comments (publishing them might be another matter).

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s