The Faltering War on Smoking

National Post:

The tobacco endgame: Radical proposals part of strategy to win faltering war on smoking

I’m very glad to hear it’s faltering.

In the faltering war against cigarettes, the latest battle cries are eye openers: prohibit smoking for anyone born after the year 2000; require a licence to buy cigarettes; nationalize the tobacco industry.

Or just make selling cigarettes illegal.

All have been proposed as part of the “tobacco endgame,” a radical — and controversial — new approach to the smoking scourge that a select group of Canadian public-health experts will discuss later this year.

Endgame proponents note that a stubborn 20 per cent of the population continues to smoke — tens of thousands of them dying annually as a result — and argue the numbers are unlikely to decrease much under current anti-smoking policies.

So, they say, it’s time for innovative, out-of-the-box ideas that might just stamp out Western society’s biggest-single source of disease.

I don’t think that these people are actually capable of  formulating “innovative, out-of-the-box ideas”. The Tobacco Control mindset is rigid and dogmatic, and consists largely of one-dimensional stereotypes of smokers (as “addicts”, for example).

In such a circumstance, any sort of innovative thinking must necessarily call into question the prevailing dogmatic mindset, and that would be unconscionable heresy. So it can’t be allowed to happen.

And it doesn’t happen. There is no sign whatever of any innovative thinking. The only thing Tobacco Control ever does is to multiply the bans and restrictions on smoking, hike the taxes higher, and ratchet up the media scaremongering. It doesn’t work, but it’s the only thing they know how to do.

And oddly for an organisation whose purpose is directed at smokers, Tobacco Control is actually not very interested in smokers. They never try to get inside their heads, or step into their shoes. Perhaps that’s because, as behaviourists, they’re incapable of empathy. They only ever lecture smokers, and never listen to them. So they can have no real understanding of them outside their stereotype depictions. Thus, incapable of any real understanding of smokers, they are incapable of making any progress against the most stubborn of them.


About the archivist

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

33 Responses to The Faltering War on Smoking

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Right on BROTHER! I give it 18 months and we start seeing repeals.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Antonin Scalia has died in his sleep on a quail hunting trip at age 79.

    Mitch McConnell: Supreme Court Vacancy Should Be Filled After Election

    “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

    It would appear the senate will not recess next Christmas so Obama cant appoint a temp judge.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Justice Scalia Dead

      We’ve just learned that Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at a Texas resort. He was 79.

      Scalia was a stalwart conservative who consistently looked at the actual words of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders in every decision he made. His passing is not only tragic for his family and those who personally knew and loved him, it has grave, obvious implications for the future of the Republic.

      With his passing there are now four committed liberals on the Supreme Court, three conservative justices and Justice Kennedy. President Obama will undoubtedly attempt to solidify his legacy by appointing a fifth left-wing justice, which means that a new conservative president would face a hostile court ready to strike down initiatives on issues ranging from immigration to the sanctity of life.

      For now we grieve the passing of this great man. The Senate must refuse to confirm any new justice on the eve of the presidential election that will decide the future of our country.

  3. “Tobacco Control is actually not very interested in smokers. They never try to get inside their heads, or step into their shoes. Perhaps that’s because, as behaviourists…”

    Exactly. They exist for one reason only; and that is to eradicate smokers. Actually, better said, I think they want to eradicate smoking, but at this point, they don’t mind if it involves the eradication of smokers or people who don’t fall for the rhetoric.

    Fun thought on second hand smoke and off topic; if it is a hazard, so unlike and more uniquely dangerous than pretty much all other things (except maybe a nuclear event and subsequent radiation), why on earth do they float it out as something people can vote on? I work part time as a butcher and the health department is very particular about things like salmonella, E. coli, trichonosis, etc. They are adamant and strict about the handling of certain meats, cleaning procedures, keeping from cross contamination… They do not, nor have they ever, allowed people to vote on those things. Same here in the US with things like unpasteurized milks and cheeses that originate in foreign countries. They just simply don’t allow them. Smoking (bans) though, oddly and as dangerous as they claim exposure to it to be, is always put up for a vote. Just one of those curious bits of logic and process I see and wonder about… If it was truly a risk with empirical evidence to back up the risk, it wouldn’t be an item people got to vote on. That it is, speaks volumes, me thinks.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Food born bacterial and viral components are proven harm creators. SHS nor smoking have been proven to be harmful ever. That’s the diff PROOF of harm to end point causation. Tobacco there is none with bacteria and viruses yes we have actual end point proof of disease.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      I agree, there is a significant logical disconnect between the current antismoker drive to ban outdoor smoking (especially in playgrounds) and in vehicles with children present.

      In a risk benefit sense, it would seem you would prioritize the greatest threats, and after all we are now told bans are imperative because “young lungs are at work” and parents are child abusers because the “poison their children” when smoking in a car or indeed indoors in a home (especially public housing).

      Now, if this is true, why in light of the precautionary principle and the police powers prerogative of the state were smoking bans in bars placed at a higher priority than smoking near children? The rationale is faulty and rings hollow. It only makes sense when you consider that invoking children drives the emotional tigers required to enforce prohibition the faltering “tobacco-free endstate.”

    • Some French Bloke says:

      at this point, they don’t mind if it involves the eradication of smokers or people who don’t fall for the rhetoric.

      Tobacco harm “denialists”, when they’re not asked for their scientific credentials (as if a chemistry teacher, computer specialist, or heart surgeon, necessarily knew best on the subject of the would-be/wobbly science of epidemiology), are routinely dismissed as shills for the “evil” Tobacco Industry

      If it was truly a risk with empirical evidence to back up the risk, it wouldn’t be an item people got to vote on

      Could this be a sign that a point has been reached where even they (viz. the ANTZ) can’t ratchet up their level of arrogance anymore?

  4. Some French Bloke says:

    “a stubborn 20 per cent of the population continues to smoke”

    As ‘Nightlight’ pointed out some time ago, “born-again” smokers are also an entity to be reckoned with (I myself could have been described as an anti-antismoking ex-smoker only three years ago). And if a never-smoker decides to take up the habit later in life, it most probably must be because (s)he’s gotten wise to the mendacity of what (s)he’s been hearing from the MSM and Governments all along concerning the “overwhelming” evidence against tobacco use.

  5. waltc says:

    Oh yes. Prohibition –the last refuge of the moralist–has always been such a suceess, i don’t know the percentage of Americans who drank in 1919, (how much more than “a stubborn 2o%”) but the percentage was said to increase in the wake of Volstead. I’d also,hazard that the year that marijuana was made illegal, the “stubborn percent” was only about 6. If you can’t stop 6% of the population from toking, how can you stop 20% from (stubbornly) smoking? The predictable result is an increase in smuggling, crime, corruption and the use of whatever it is you’re prohibiting. I doubt that a legislature exists that would buy into a repeat of the foregone conclusion. OTOH, unfortunately, they’ll continue on the path of death by a thousand cuts, prohibiting the use of tobacco everywhere, though at this point, there aren’t many “wheres” left.

  6. Lepercolonist says:

    Is is possible that anti-smoking’s mothers were infected with the Zika virus and that is why they have microcephaly ? Could have fooled me.

    • smokingscot says:

      Don’t think so. Actually I got a bee under my bonnet about this very issue in Brazil and – as is my wont – said something about it. You might honour me with a shuftie (if you do, you’ll be the first!):

      With respect to the underlying thrust of your statement, I have noticed that the anti-smoking people seem to award funding to those who:

      a) Share their views.

      b) Are financially starved.

      c) Singularly unambitious.

      d) Not terribly good at what they do.

      In short they’re stuck in a rut career wise and quite happy to produce any sort of rubbish tobacco control want to hear, for a fee, and not an especially large fee either.

      Certainly that’s the case with several individuals in academia within UK universities and over the years I’ve had reason to examine them and their studies and each and every one comes up woefully short of a full deck.

      What I would like to point out is this alarming cabal of 100% academia, all so called fellows at the “Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education” (all carefully hand picked by Mr. Glantz).

      There are 15 of them listed and while I can only make a vague guess as to their gross salary, I suspect they’ll be pocketing north of $65,000 each year.

      I have spoken with several individuals at the sharp end of recruitment and head hunting and a CV that shows a history of work in tobacco control is of very little value in the real world. In short, you really have to be quite desperate to even work in tobacco control and once in you’re stuffed.

      Taking Frank’s point about empathy. If we place ourselves in their shoes, there you are, a drone, no ambition, working on a diktat from the WHO and protected by their FCTC, you have a very pleasant work environment and for the most part you’ll be working in familiar (university) surroundings. The work you are required to produce is not challenging and the deadlines are almost infinite. Mostly you’ll spend time on the phone, on the computer, doing emails and you can use these for your own purposes. You’ll probably have a car and health care and even bonuses. Here in the UK you’ll certainly have a fully funded pension scheme.

      What’s not to like about that?

      Well there is one drawback – and that’s the petty infighting that goes on where you’ve got an office full of overpaid and over-promoted dingbats – and that’s one reason why ASH in England suffers from a 25% staff turnover pretty well each and every year.

      They’re not nice people and if you’ve ever had to work in such an environment it does foster a very high degree of conformity. You do what you’re told, usually by a boss who has no qualifications whatsoever, but has the power of career life or death over you.

      • Roobeedoo2 says:

        Really interesting. Thanks. Too many thoughts to express right now but this Zika thing is a bit different to the other Pestilence warnings we’ve had.

        • smokingscot says:

          You’re welcome. I felt something had to be said.

          And it’s spreading faster than anyone could imagine. You probably know it’s mutated to being transmittable by sex.

          Checked on the WHO site. Believe it or not, under media centre, posted 1 Feb this year is the headline news that films showing smoking in films should be given an adult rating!!!

          And “Carol” is nominated for best film at this year’s BAFTA awards. It is wall to wall with women puffing on cigarettes!

          Check out the (short) trailer:

      • Frank Davis says:

        …a CV that shows a history of work in tobacco control is of very little value in the real world. In short, you really have to be quite desperate to even work in tobacco control and once in you’re stuffed.

        I very much suspect that Tobacco Control is a sort of closed, self-reinforcing, cult-like society whose members have little contact with any other professionals, even within medicine. Once inside it, they are drawn into the cult mindset, and become true believers in every single piece of drivel it promotes.

        If nothing else, their numerous conferences (e.g. Moscow) seem to be tightly focused on smoking and nothing else. They don’t seem to interact very much with ordinary (and presumably sane) doctors.

        • smokingscot says:

          I wholly agree that TC does indeed resemble a cult – and it seems to me that:

          1) Getting your “drivel” published in some medical journal.

          2) An above average salary.

          serves to reinforce their status and personal prestige.

          Getting it regurgitated in the press makes matters infinitely worse. Elevating mediocrity is extremely dangerous – and that applies to the people within the EU as well as the academics who hover on the borders of the medical profession.

          With respect to:

          “They don’t seem to interact very much with ordinary (and presumably sane) doctors.”

          Not sure if you’ve had time to visit Mr. P’s site, but his current post does beg the question, what sanity?

          And let’s not take the Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davis, too seriously. She’s the one who thinks a glass of wine may give you breast cancer. I thought Granddad gave that one a cracking good airing, so I commented and filled in some of the blanks.

          £244,441 a year base salary! Nowt sane about that.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          When you actually have a real degree and use it to invent propaganda junk science your name is S.H.I.T. when the game is finally up. How do you recycle a name ruined by your own agenda and your doings while everyones laughing at you. I told siegel several times over the years he needed to save his own reputation and start telling the DAMN TRUTH for a change…….He doesn’t give a fuck and just extends his junk science onto guns and anything his lil health Nazi group in boston want his leftist slant to push next…… What a fucking Moron. A man with no self respect and especially for the science he is suppose to maintain above reproach yet defiles it in every breath he takes……….

  7. Cecily Collingridge says:

    A leaked report on mental health services by a government taskforce shows “the number of people killing themselves is soaring, that three-quarters of those with psychiatric conditions are not being helped, and that sick children are being sent “almost anywhere in the country” for treatment.

    It concludes that the physical needs of those with mental health issues are also ignored. It suggests a 15% reduction in smoking should be achieved by 2020 by offering targeted support for smokers and ensuring all mental health inpatient units are smoke-free by 2018.

    This policy is inhumane and may well impact the rising suicide figures.

    The final version of the report is due to be published tomorrow.

  8. Smoking Lamp says:

    I agree with the view that tobacco control is a cult. Like all cults it has factions. On the extreme edge there are those seeking eradication of smoking. The slightly more rational advocate harm-reduction. The following article at the “Daily Caller” sums things up. It is an interview with a tobacco controller who calls the prohibitionists an ‘Abstinence Only’ movement. See “Leading Tobacco Control Expert Says Anti-E-Cig Lobby Is Like ‘Abstinence Only’ Movement”

    Read more:

  9. dear frank, i am still a big fan of your webblog. i have visited harley,s blog too but could not comment there.still you and grandad and dick p. seem to have an occasional troll named dickie doublday whom i think doubles as patroller on other blogs.i find it hilarious thattrolls like them have so little real substance to work with. when their argument is truly shown for complete b.s.they then resort to threats or swearing at the people refuting their claims.i read your blog as much for knowledge as always seem to have thought out what you say as much as how you say it.your posits are thought out andand well articulated.also please tell harley he is doing a great service exposing the public health lairs for what they really are. thank you for letting me post my comment. yours truly, Raymond barfoot

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Raymond The commenting should be open now I think for anything. Of course I could be wrong as I just started working out the buttons and whistles.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:


  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Hospitals deter smokers with public address system

    13 February 2016

    From the section Tees

    Hospitals in Durham have introduced public address systems to deter people flouting smoking bans in their grounds.

    Darlington and Durham Hospitals Trust said patients and visitors were ignoring no smoking signs including at Darlington Memorial.

    A spokeswoman said patients arriving at its hospitals often had to walk through smoke which was “unacceptable”.

    Anyone wanting to light up has to go to the gates of the hospital grounds, officials said.

    The trust spokeswoman said: “Patients and visitors, including new born babies and those arriving via ambulance, often have to pass through cigarette smoke at our hospital entrances, which is totally unacceptable.”

  12. slugbop007 says:

    Bunch of neurotic hypochondriacs. My mother smoked Lucky Strikes and my father smoked Pall Malls before giving birth to me. I weighed almost nine pounds.

  13. DICK R says:

    Similar tactics are being used against drinking ,there are those amongst us who somehow feel that they are on this earth just to curtail the simple pleasures of others ,the must simply be told to FUCK OFF !!!

  14. Smoking Lamp says:

    Recently enacted smoking restrictions in South Korea are starting to erode: “Subway stations set to have smoking booths.”

  15. beobrigitte says:

    I don’t think that these people are actually capable of formulating “innovative, out-of-the-box ideas”. The Tobacco Control mindset is rigid and dogmatic, and consists largely of one-dimensional stereotypes of smokers (as “addicts”, for example).
    Anti-smokers and innovative-out-of-the-box-ideas? I really do need a laugh tonight!!!! From what I have seen them blurting is stuff that was used in Germany when my parents were young!

    The tobacco endgame: Radical proposals part of strategy to win faltering war on smoking
    Oh, have all the European Governments woken up to the facts we all have REAL problems?
    Welcome to EARTH, Brussels!

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 )

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.