Duped and Demoralised Politicians

Dick Puddlecote asks Should We Lie Like Tobacco Controllers?:

The process the tobacco control industry lives by seems to consist of these purposely-designed steps:

1) Commit to a policy
2) Create junk science to fit that policy, by any means possible
3) If the junk science doesn’t throw up believable results, lie in the press release
4) Sit back and ignore the inevitable debunking, the headlines are out and everyone will believe them

This is what tobacco control calls ‘science’, and the people who promote lies – because that’s what they are – in this manner are described by the press as ‘experts’.

I’ve come to the conclusion that this is the way Tobacco Control has always worked. Because from the outset the antismokers have always known that smoking is harmful. They’re already fully committed to that view. And once they’re convinced, they then do the ‘science’ that backs up that view. And if the science doesn’t produce the “right” answers, then they’ll print the “right” answers anyway. And their scaremongering fabrications will be published in the press. And if the Tobacco Controllers are fear-mongers, it’s because they themselves were the products of past fear-mongering, and they’re replicating what was done to make them frightened of tobacco, complete with all the lies they were told.

I think that in the case of e-cigarettes, the speed with which they’ve thrown the book at them is a wonderful illustration of the process. For to the antismokers e-cigarettes look like cigarettes, and they involve inhaling the vapour, and so they are cigarettes, and they know that smoking is harmful. So, with great speed, they produce the research that shows that this new product is just as harmful. It only took them a year or two. Maybe less. And it’s all printed in the press, verbatim.

But I’m not sure that everyone believes them. After all, I don’t. And I dare say that most of my readers don’t believe them either. And I generally get the impression that most ordinary people don’t believe either. But I’ve been thinking recently that one reason why the political class tends to believe them, and keeps passing more and more antismoking (and now antivaping) legislation is because most of Tobacco Control’s fabrications are really aimed at politicians. That’s why they want headlines.

It’s well worth reading Deborah Arnott’s description of how the UK smoking ban got through parliament:

It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we “knew” we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side. But it was only five minutes before the vote that the political adviser to the health secretary phoned us to let us know Patricia Hewitt was supporting our position, and we only found out after the vote that the prime minister and Gordon Brown had followed her through the lobby.

This “confidence trick” wasn’t played on the British people: it was played on 650 MPs in parliament. The MPs were bombarded with all sorts of appeals, from all directions. And theses thoroughly duped and demoralised politicians caved in.

We smokers may think that we’re subjected to a tremendous amount of propaganda. But I’d like to suggest that we haven’t been propagandised half as much – or even quarter as much – as MPs have been, and still are being.

And there’s a simple reason why TC primarily targets the politicians: they’re the people who make the laws and keep the money flowing. And there are only 650 people who really matter, and they’re the ones who need to be kept fed with stories which will stiffen their resolve to ban smoking, and keep the money coming to TC. And most of these MPs won’t have the time or energy to look into what they’re being told. They probably only ever read headlines.

TC doesn’t give a damn what I or anyone else in this nation of 65 million people may think. They only care about 650 of them. As long as those 650 can be kept in line, TC will be safe.

P.S. Online Petition by to Jeremy Hunt MP to  sack Chief Medical Officer Sally Davies.

About the archivist

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

66 Responses to Duped and Demoralised Politicians

  1. Cecily Collingridge says:

    Frank… It’s a petition TO Jeremy Hunt to sack the CMO, not by him.

  2. I think lying isn’t necessary; they’re the only ones who need them, along with propaganda to create and carry what ever illusion or delusion du’jour they wish to press.

    I’m a passive type, and have always though that eventually the truth wins. That said, I hope in my life to see people like her, and others of her ilk, who use compulsive lies to destroy lives with legislation, tried and punished in some court and put away in a cell with chain smoking cell mates or guards… Or maybe just taken to Guantanamo for questioning in the meantime.

    They’ve defiled everything really; culture, society, science, press, and politics.

  3. waltc says:

    I think they DO know that vaping isn’t smoking. What bugs them is just that it looks like smoking, that it”normalizes” the act of putting something that looks like a cigarette in your mouth and exhaling something that looks like smoke. They hate the sight of it as well as the sight –, to paraphrase Mencken– of somebody somewhere looking happy with something that looks like a cigarette. (Though with apologies to vapers, something that looks like a ballpoint pen .)

    As for the rest – that pols are their first and main target–absolutely. When Elizabeth Whelan of ACSH came out in print saying that ETS “science” was wildly exaggerated hype with no factual backup, she got reamed by her peers (and their memos are replicated somewhere at CLASH) telling her that the truth was not enough to impress the politicians and impressing them (into enacting bans) was the point of the exercise. (Though I’d also contend that the second target is the General –and scientifically illiterate– Public. If they couldn’t get the Public to shun, fear, and loathe smokers,they couldn’t succeed in getting the smokers shunned, feared and loathed.)

    Then there’s the other side of that coin.

    Quote, Stanton Glantz: ” In every state there are a few politicians who seem to be taking the lead in pushing the industry’s position [ Glantz slurs anyone who disagrees with him as an industry front]. As soon as these politicians start floating their trial balloons, they should be attacked publicly. If they can be bloodied, it could well scare the others off. Fear is a great motivator for politicians.”

    And sure enough, when the first NYC ban was still being considered, he tarred the very anti-smoking council speaker, implying he’d been bought because he’d assembled a task force to investigate whether the answer (to the non-problem) was ventilation. And after being smeared, the speaker quietly disbanded the task force.

    And of course at election time Bloomberg famously dubbed a rival candidate –a guy who’d talked about loosening the ban — as “the pro-cancer candidate.”

    just a few examples in a very long list.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think they DO know that vaping isn’t smoking.

      It seems to me that their objection is to inhaling anything into your lungs. Lungs are for breathing God’s sweet air, and nothing else. It’s a form of self-abuse to do anything except breathe pure fresh air. In that sense, e-cigarettes are no different from cigarettes, reefers, or any other inhaled smoke or vapour. I suspect that they would ban medical inhalers as well, but then they’d be up against the medical profession which many of them belong to.

      There’s a doctrine of ‘right’ use of body organs underlying this. If lungs are for breathing, stomachs are for digesting food, and nothing but nutritious food. So no alcohol, sweets, ice cream. These also are self-abuse.

      And of course sexual organs come in for particular attention. And minds are for thinking pure, ‘right’ thoughts, and nothing else.

  4. Timothy Goodacre says:

    These idiots never stop do they. They’ve diminished our choice of cigarettes. Demolished our social life, and robbed us blind. It looks like they will make a criminal out of me because i’m not obeying their public smoking bans.

  5. kin_free says:

    Absolutely – This is something I have believed for years. You only have to con a few people in powerful places. Once they give, even just a little, they are locked in and can then be manipulated almost at will. They can only get out of this by admitting to having being conned. If you are a powerful person you cannot admit to such failings.

    Carl Sagan; “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

  6. magnetic01 says:

    Here’s an excerpt from an antismoking “advocacy toolkit” (from a Canadian toolkit, but will be the same around the world, and relevant to bans of any sort, indoor and out). It’s very light on facts. It highlights the tricks/tactics used to contrive appearances – from flooding comments boards with inflammatory rhetoric, to conducting their own “polls”, to giving the appearance of wholesale public support for smoking bans – to manipulate the public and politicians/law-makers:

    “For the next few months, strive to ensure there are positive media stories, letters to the editor, etc., that tout how well the bylaw changes are working. There will no doubt be a backlash from smokers in the beginning until they get used to the changes.
    In the meantime, you have to counter their negative comments in the media, in comment sections of online news pieces and blogs, on radio call-in shows, etc.
    Your job is to make politicians continue to believe that they did the right thing.”
    It is not unheard of for councillors to backtrack on their decision and water down legislation.” (p. 48)


    Click to access Smoke-free%20outdoor%20spaces%20advocacy%20-sept2010.pdf

  7. magnetic01 says:

    It doesn’t matter if, after a ban, business is deteriorating, smokers feel more ostracized, and nonsmokers become more neurotic and bigoted. It wouldn’t matter if the whole place is crashing down. The role of the antismoking activist is to try to convince particularly law-makers that everyone just loves the ban; that even smokers are ecstatic about being shoved out of their usual socializing and having further [baseless] restrictions placed on them.

    Beware of antismoking activists. They live in a deranged fantasy world. They are pathological liars, amongst other dysfunction. They’ll say and do anything to get bans passed and maintained.

  8. magnetic01 says:

    The first goal of antismoking activists is to get lawmakers to institute smoking bans (and other punitive measures) by hook or by crook. The second goal of antismoking activists is to have smoking bans, etc maintained by hook or by crook. The fake promises of antismoking activists eventually get found out. For example, in many localities the lie of smoking bans being wonderful for business becomes apparent. So the activists scramble to conjure another line of deception.

    Glands has been one of the major manufacturers of junk to get smoking bans instituted and then maintained. With the “smoking bans are great for business” failing, Glands conjured a study on heart attack “miracles” following smoking bans. The activists can claim that, ok, smoking bans are not good for quite a few businesses but, look, smoking bans have an unforeseen, immediate effect – fewer heart attacks following smoking bans. Antismoking conclusion: Smoking bans should be maintained.

  9. prog says:

    ‘The BBC has this morning revealed that eleven councils in the south west are to stop funding the anti-smoking campaign group Smokefree South West which will close in June.’


    • Tony says:

      Great news.

      Maybe we’re finally seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. The global warming alarmists in Australia are being de-funded too:

      • prog says:

        TC will be v pissed off. I predicted that the rise of e-cigs as cessation products would put pressure on local smoking services. Perhaps one reason many are anti vaping, but worse for TC will be the reduced direct access to LA councillors/officials, thereby maker it harder to get local support for its vicious projects that cause immense harm to society. SFSW was one of the worst (perhaps the worst).

        Good riddance. I can only hope its employees end up in the dole queue.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Thing is about vaping,it defeats the ban,its just like smoking and its a way to have a smoke until you can have a real smoke. Ive not met anyone in person who quit smoking by vaping not a single person. Even at the bingo hall with 2-300 smokers in one big room you might see 2 vaping and then alternate smoking in between. Vaping in Ky isn’t very big much less in tenn. Its seems a FAD item to the kids and some adults. I tried it hated it and kept up with my Marlboros or home roll.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Good its starting to sound like the whole progressive agenda is finally being abolished bit by bit.

    • Cecily Collingridge says:

      This news about Smokefree South West is great, particularly as I live in the South West. However, their latest dooming and glooming fiesta of a TV campaign is about to start. Their swan song. I’m tempted to leave a message on their answerphone.

    • jaxthefirst says:

      I particularly liked this snippet from Simon Clark’s blog on the subject of SFSW:

      “Smokefree South West must have known something was afoot because – in a sure sign of desperation – they re-named themselves Public Health Action and started campaigning on drinking as well as smoking.”

      Too little, too late, methinks, SFSW! They should’ve jumped on the anti-alcohol bandwagon a bit quicker, being as alcohol looks pretty well set to be “the new tobacco,” largely because it’s easier to find the necessary “innocent bystander” in the drinking scenario (crime, domestic violence, child neglect, vehicle accidents etc) to whip up the required sense of self-righteous indignation amongst the drone-like, believe-anything public than it is for its current rivals, the anti-sugar or anti-salt or anti-fat brigade.

      I just hope that more councils now follow suit.

  10. magnetic01 says:

    The law is very important to antismoking nut cases. It doesn’t matter if antismoking laws have no coherent basis…… if the law is abused…. if the law is made an ass. The only thing that matters to antismokers is that antismoking laws are instituted by whatever means.

    Concerning the introduction of antismoking laws in Victoria, Australia, it was suggested that “once the fuss has died down, they might, much like traffic lights and jaywalking laws, be honored more in the breach than the observation”. In response, it was cautioned: “Don’t you believe it. Once they’re in, they’re in. There is no creature more fierce and persistent than a non-smoker with the law on his or her side.” (The Age, June 30, 2001, p.12)

    In the above, “non-smoker” should really read “anti-smoker”.

    A 1995 High Point Enterprise article indicates some of the lengths that some are willing to go to in “self-protection” and rightness with the law:
    An Algonquin, Illinois, man [G. Thompson] was arrested Sunday afternoon at Spring Hill Mall and charged with assaulting a pregnant woman, apparently because he was bothered by her cigarette smoke, police said….Thompson had been shopping at the mall when at about 3p.m., he apparently saw a 28-year-old Carpentersville woman, who is 8 1/2 months pregnant, sitting and smoking nearby, police said.
    Thompson apparently became enraged because he was bothered by the smoke, police said. He allegedly walked up to the woman and grabbed her right hand, then twisted it and bent it behind her head until she dropped the cigarette, police said.
    He walked away saying, ‘There is no smoking in the mall,’ according to the police report. ‘He just said he was overcome by the smoke and he took it upon himself to vigilante the situation,’ said West Dundee Officer Steve Pirtle. The police officer said the assailant wasn’t necessarily acting out of concern for the effects smoking could have on the woman’s fetus. ‘He is a nonsmoker,’ Pirtle said. ‘He was just worried about himself.’

    Again “nonsmoker” should read “antismoker”.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    This “confidence trick” wasn’t played on the British people: it was played on 650 MPs in parliament. The MPs were bombarded with all sorts of appeals, from all directions. And theses thoroughly duped and demoralised politicians caved in.

    the same way it went down in tennessee in 2007

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Same old shit via press release, Same old rehashed debunked garbage collection

    Have national smoking bans worked in reducing harms of passive smoking?


    A team of Irish researchers funded by the Health Research Board, Ireland included 77 studies from populations of 21 countries around the world into this updated Cochrane Review, including the US, UK, Canada, and Spain. The previous review, originally published in 2010, examined how smoking legislation had reduced smoke in public places; these new included studies look at more robust evidence into the effects of passive smoking, and the associated health risks including heart disease

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Another junk science PR release

      Smoking bans linked to fewer heart attacks and strokes


      Personally I think the Bastards are on their last leg of propaganda run…………why else would they throw an all encompassing junk report together if they aint SCARED the shits fixing to hit the fan on their laws and funding.

    • slugbop007 says:

      Someone posted this article a few days ago. It bears repeating:

      Government ‘fixing health consultations’ with taxpayer-funded groups
      02 Jan 2009
      “The Government has been accused of fixing the outcome of public consultations on health policy after it emerged that reviews were flooded with block votes from groups funded entirely by the taxpayer.”

      “Earlier this month the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, announced that the display of cigarettes and tobacco in shops would be banned in England and Wales from 2011.”

      “Mr Johnson boasted that the display ban was favoured by an “overwhelming majority” of 96,000 responses to a six-month public consultation on the subject.”

      “Yet only a handful of those 96,000 respondents came from individuals submitting their personal views. Almost 70,000 came from those collected by pressure groups entirely funded by the Department for Health.

      Among the groups submitting block responses were SmokeFree NorthWest, SmokeFree Liverpool and SmokeFree North East, which were all set up by the Government to lobby against the tobacco industry.”

      “Ministers have effectively been accused of “astroturfing” – cultivating a fake grassroots movement in order to make a position appear more popular than it really is.”

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smokefree South West Just Quit

    Aww such a shame, how will we cope without Smokefree South West and their government lobbying government antics, eh? Via Simon Clark:The BBC has this morning revealed that eleven councils in the south west are to stop funding the anti-smoking campaign group Smokefree South West which will close in J

    Dick Puddlecote


  14. harleyrider1978 says:


    Tobacco Taxes: Good for Public Health, Good for Fiscal Revenues

    February 8, 2016

    World Bank Group ‘G’ Building (1776 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006) Room: G8 – 090

    This BBL will run from 11:00AM ET to 1:00PM ET.

    Tobacco kills more people each year than HIV/AIDs, malaria and TB combined. The number of smokers is rising in developing countries and will contribute to 1 billion premature deaths in this century unless countries implement well-known, cost-effective tobacco control policies, including higher tobacco taxes. Such taxes not only save lives but also increase revenues and reduce poverty among households whose members quit smoking.

    Dr. Savedoff will summarize important facts related to tobacco consumption in developing countries, the effectiveness of tobacco taxation, and common objections to raising tobacco taxes. He will conclude by describing “smart” tobacco taxes and the kinds of support international organizations could provide to promote effective tobacco tax increases.

    William Savedoff is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development (CGD) where he works on issues of health policy, performance payments, and corruption. At CGD, Savedoff played a leading role in the Evaluation Gap Initiative and co-authored Cash on Delivery Aid with Nancy Birdsall. Before joining CGD, Savedoff prepared, coordinated, and advised development projects in Latin America, Africa and Asia for the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Health Organization. As a Senior Partner at Social Insight, Savedoff worked for clients including the National Institutes of Health, Transparency International, and the World Bank. He has published books and articles on labor markets, health, education, water, and housing including “What Should a Country Spend on Health?”, Governing Mandatory Health Insurance, and Diagnosis Corruption.

    To join this event, please use the following information:

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Senate hearings in July showed the same ill effects of the 1920s in todays world of smoking bans and High Taxation with MASSIVE BOOTLEGGING and lost revenues with heavy enforcement costs.

      ” The high tax burden on tobacco results in de facto prohibition of the products, bringing all the undesirable outcomes associated with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. In our research we have found evidence of substantial tobacco smuggling from low to high tax jurisdictions, violent crime, theft of tobacco and tobacco tax stamps, corruption of law-enforcement officers, and even funding of terrorist organizations through crime rings.”

      People are smoking more now than ever as your anti-smoking world collapases around you.

      Tobacco Taxation and Unintended Consequences: U.S. Senate Hearing on Tobacco Taxes Owed, Avoided, and Evaded

      July 29, 2014


      Scott Drenkard

      Drenkard Statement to U.S. Senate Finance Committee July 2014

      Hearing on Tobacco: Taxes Owed, Avoided, and Evaded
      Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance

      Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Hatch, and members of the Committee:

      I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement on tobacco taxes and their impact across the country. In the 77 years since our founding in 1937, the Tax Foundation has monitored tax policy trends at the federal and state levels, and our data and research are heavily relied upon by policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our analysis is guided by the idea that taxes should be as simple, neutral, transparent, and stable as possible, and as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, we take no position on any pending legislation.

      We hope that the material we provide will be helpful in the Committee’s consideration of the issue.

      Executive Summary

      Tobacco taxes are the highest they have ever been in the United States. The federal rate currently stands at $1.0066 per pack of cigarettes, and state and local rates add as much as an additional $6.16 per pack (as in Chicago, Illinois). These combined rates are equivalent to a tax in excess of 200 percent in some locales.

      The high tax burden on tobacco results in de facto prohibition of the products, bringing all the undesirable outcomes associated with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. In our research we have found evidence of substantial tobacco smuggling from low to high tax jurisdictions, violent crime, theft of tobacco and tobacco tax stamps, corruption of law-enforcement officers, and even funding of terrorist organizations through crime rings.

      The Mackinac Center for Public Policy estimates that 56.9 percent of the cigarettes consumed in New York State in 2012 were smuggled into the state from other locales. Other states with substantial smuggling problems include Arizona (51.5 percent), New Mexico (48.1 percent), Washington (48.0 percent) and Wisconsin (34.6 percent).

      In addition to smuggling authentic cigarettes from low to high tax jurisdictions, criminals sometimes skirt the legal market altogether and counterfeit name brand products and state tobacco tax stamps. Cigarette counterfeiting is a highly profitable international business that exposes consumers to products with increased levels of dangerous chemicals like lead and thallium. Other sources report finding insect eggs, dead flies, mold, and human feces in counterfeit cigarettes. One source estimates that the Chinese cigarette counterfeiting business produces 400 billion cigarettes per year.

      In 1994, federal cigarette excise taxes in Canada were cut from $16 to $11 per carton because cigarette smuggling had grown so pervasive.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Seems the world bank is scared to death somebody finds out what they are up to

      This application is now being protected by two-factor authentication. If you do not have a token, please contact the help desk or your local IT.

    • Joe L. says:

      The number of smokers is rising in developing countries

      Wait a minute — what about all the TC / Public Health bravado claiming how successful the bans, higher taxes, ad campaigns, etc. have been at reducing the smoking “problem?”

      Also, the World Bank is the last entity I want telling me what’s good for my health.

  15. Timothy Goodacre says:

    If they keep taxing cigarettes like this they can only expect people to break the law. Great news that the publicly funded tosspots Smokefree Southwest are losing

  16. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Contd. Their funding. Time funding was withdrawn from these university departments too like the one at Bath University. Bogus the lot of them !

  17. harleyrider1978 says:
    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The global economy seems trapped in a “death spiral” that could lead to further weakness in oil prices, recession and a serious equity bear market, Citi strategists have warned.

      Some analysts — including those at Citi — have turned bearish on the world economy this year, following an equity rout in January and weaker economic data out of China and the U.S.

      “The world appears to be trapped in a circular reference death spiral,” Citi strategists led by Jonathan Stubbs said in a report on Thursday.

      “Stronger U.S. dollar, weaker oil/commodity prices, weaker world trade/petrodollar liquidity, weaker EM (and global growth)… and repeat. Ad infinitum, this would lead to Oilmageddon, a ‘significant and synchronized’ global recession and a proper modern-day equity bear market.”

      Stubbs said that macro strategists at Citi forecast that the dollar would weaken in 2016 and that oil prices were likely bottoming, potentially providing some light at the end of the tunnel.

      “The death spiral is in nobody’s interest. Rational behavior, most likely, will prevail,” he said in the report.

      Crude oil prices have tumbled by around 70 percent since the middle of 2014, during which time the U.S. dollar has risen by around 20 percent against a basket of currencies.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Uncle Owebama’s Economic Disaster Stew:

        1. Add 1 packet of SweetLo artificially low interest rates

        2. Add trillions of QE brand printed money sauce.

        3. Add 19 trillion parts of National Debt veggie seasoning.

        4. Add equal parts of SRL (Socialist Racist Liar) Owebama noodles and Dr Gruber’s Stupid Voter rice.

        5. Add 2 lbs of Mrs Pelosi’s Mountain Oysters. You will have to read it to see what’s in it.

        6. Cook for 6-8 years uncovered in a White House crock pot, serve on paper plates with plastic utensils.

  18. harleyrider1978 says:
  19. harleyrider1978 says:

    Muriel Froomberg celebrated her 107th on Monday (Photo: Adam Tiernan Thomas)

    A 107-year-old great-great grandmother who lived in Willesden for two decades gave up smoking just FIVE years ago because “she wanted to live a long life”.


    Talk about stupidity………….gave up WHY!

    • Joe L. says:

      At 102 years old she decided she wanted to live a long life … WTF? Obviously smoking wasn’t hindering her longevity.

  20. Clicky says:

  21. harleyrider1978 says:
  22. Smoking Lamp says:


    When discussing the manipulation of politicians, Australia is perhaps one of the best case studies of neo-Puritan prohibitionist excess. It seems tobacco vaping, and alcohol are all on the target list. Strangely the politicians seem to embrace this extreme social control. I have to adit this actually surprises me because when I was last in Sydney (20 years ago), thing were much different. I have fond memories of drinking a schooner in many bars and hotels, and enjoying a smoke on the beach. For many years, I have enjoyed Australian beer and wine, and remember a lively, fun crowd.

    It seems the prohibitionists have cowed Australian politicians into an Orwellian social control experiment as discussed in an opinion piece at today’s Guardian. The article “Sydney’s fun police have put out the light of the nightlife. The city’s a global laughing stock” describes the decline of freedom in Sydney. According to the piece (which conforms to other media reports), bars, nightclubs, hotels, and restaurants are closing at breakneck pace. Kings Cross, formerly a robust entertainment district is decimated (from 2102 to 2015 42 venues closed), due to excessive regulation. The regulations include restrictions on alcohol sales (you can’t buy a bottle of wine after 10 PM, restrictions on drink size, and you can’t enter a drinking establishment after 1:30 AM due to an access curfew.

    The economic impact is dire, but official reports make the impact by counting businesses outside the restricted areas. (Sounds like the tobacco control approach to assessing the economic impact of smoking bans!) As the report states: “The statistics have been rigged so police are policing to reduce sin, not safety.”

    The essay also recounts the use of propaganda to influence politicians and build public support for this Orwellian control regime. While the essay does not mention the smoking bans (smoking bans are draconian and not only ban indoor smoking but also restrict smoking on beaches, outdoor patios, and on street and sidewalks in downtown areas)., the same mechanisms are at play. This is an excellent read and should be widely shared. Check it out at: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/05/sydneys-fun-police-have-put-out-the-light-of-the-nightlife-the-citys-a-global-laughing-stock

  23. jaxthefirst says:

    In view of the latest “miracle” figures, I thought you all might like to see a copy of a truly excellent comment posted some years ago (sorry, can’t remember where or by whom, and the link no longer works – apologies if the author is reading this. It wasn’t me – I only wish I could write so eloquently!). It was in the wake of the infamous Pell “miracle,” but I’m sure many of the points raised could be equally applied to this latest “study.” Here it is:

    “I’ll put my cards on the table straight away and say that I am a member of Freedom2Choose. However, as a lifelong non-smoker I came to them relatively late – one year into the smoking ban to be precise. Indeed, it was the reporting of the aforementioned Pell study on the BBC that drew me to it. Not only did the results seem preposterous, but as an academic I am fully aware of how long it takes articles to be peer-reviewed, accepted and published by journals and was confused as to how Professor Pell could conduct, write and submit the study, wait for the observed variable to have an effect AND have it peer-reviewed in a fraction of the time it normally takes.

    “Upon investigation it turned out that she hadn’t bothered with any of that nonsense and that it was literally nothing more than her opinion (hence its being rubbished by both “The Times” and the BBC, even though the Government still uses it as evidence of the “success” of the ban). I was so shocked by this shoddy work that I dug deeper into the research on passive smoking, and then into the anti-smoking movement and was quite simply stunned at what I found. Politicisation of science on a rampant scale; “charities” such as ASH being wholly funded by the Government and large pharmaceutical companies who benefit from the sale and promotion of nicotine replacement products; “consultations” that only involve said anti-smoking groups and ignore other stakeholders…. and most frightening of all, legislation based not on science (for those willing to actually look into the issue, the science behind second-hand smoke is, even being generous, extraordinarily tenuous) but on the campaigning of focus groups that seem to carry sway by repeating lies often enough and loudly enough that it becomes accepted as fact.

    “I admit, I personally don’t care about smoking in pubs either way (although the fact that the number of pubs closing went from two a week to six a day BEFORE the credit crunch even started is concerning). However, I am involved with this issue as I found the warping of scientific research and the basing of restrictive legislation upon such junk science to be profoundly disturbing. If Mr Harris and his colleagues think that the only people who are angry about this legislation are the tobacco industry, the hospitality trade and Big Tobacco (although that is a large enough group!) he is sadly mistaken. There are many people, smokers and non-smokers alike, who object deeply to it, whether it be because of the wanton economic damage it has caused, because of libertarian issues or because of the clear warping of science that is being used to justify it.

    “He should laugh while he can. This issue will not go away and more and more people are seeing through it.”

  24. mk says:

    Something they never mention…in Ireland at least, the smoking ban was great for recruiting new smokers. The cool place to be for young folk became the smoking area. It’s nice to go out & have a break from the noise, heat, smells etc inside the pub. Many pubs got really nice beer gardens installed, heaters, nice benches, etc. Many a never smoker decided to go out with a smoker, enjoyed the atmosphere and company & made the choice to try a cigarette, and did so again and found that they liked smoking. I know a fair few who started smoking this way.

    In a busy pub or nightclub it’s easier to talk to people in the smoking area than inside…by a large degree. It’s easier to chat up girls/boys/etc. It’s probably the most sociable part of the establishment to be in, whether you smoke, vape or do neither.

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 )

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.