Forward Together with Tobacco Control

From the UK Conservative party Forward Together manifesto:

And there’ll be more regulation, not less:

“A Conservative government will strengthen the hand of regulators.”

“Forward Together” is the title of the Conservative party manifesto. And in the passage above, which seems to have been written by some kind of socialist, “selfish individualism” is rejected, while government is lauded as something that “can do good” for “the common good” of a “society”, “country”, “community”, and “nation”, in which everyone has “a debt to others”.

All this talk of “community” means absolutely nothing in a country in which about a quarter of the population  – the smokers – have been “exiled to the outdoors”, and expelled from society. For them community, in any real sense, has ceased to exist. Nevertheless it will be in the name of  “society”, “country”, “community”, and “nation” that the war on smokers will be intensified under Theresa May’s future Conservative government, and social disintegration will accelerate.

Or, as Pat Nurse wrote on Facebook:

“We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality.” Says Teresa May who supports social division by dividing us all up into smokers/non smokers/fatties/skinnies/healthy/unhealthy; attacking one group of consumers who have more rights taken from them than any other consumer group; leading a party that is unjust to anyone who does not share Public Health’s despicable bigotry and ideology, and by backing the inequalities in employment, healthcare, social settings and housing for smokers that Public Health, which began life as an anti-smoker lobby group, deliberately created for them. In short, May, like Corbyn, is a bigot, a liar, a bully and offers absolutely nothing, not even one iota of respect for those who have paid far more to keep this country going than anyone else. No one wants my vote so no one gets it. #IsmokeIvote

I’ve yet to see any UKIP manifesto, to check whether their pledge to introduce smoking rooms in pubs has been excised from it, as Pat Nurse has said. But it makes no difference anyway to me, because there isn’t a UKIP candidate in my Herefordshire North constituency.

Like Pat Nurse says: No one wants my vote so no one gets it.


About Frank Davis

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

24 Responses to Forward Together with Tobacco Control

  1. buckothemoose says:

    I won’t be voting for anyone this time either. I’m just going to scrawl, “Repeal the smoking ban” on my ballot paper
    No that anyone will see it or care…

  2. Rose says:

    Getting out of the EU is more important to me.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Rose, a year ago I was for getting out the EU mostly because I was hoping to get my freedom and place in our society back.
      Right now I am not so sure. As Pat Nurse said in:
      The EU is not as bad as Britain in its smokerphobia hence the tpd did not impose plain packs. There is also more social choice for smokers in public places, no car ban, and no home ban in Europe. The spite is purely British. The myth is that the EU pushed it on us. Ukip was happy for us to believe it to get more support for Brexit and that is all that matters to ukip.
      I sure can confirm that the smoking-bans on the continent are not as draconian (?for now) as that we are living in GB were served in 2007.

      I do admit openly that I will support the party that kicks out the ilk of Deborah Arnott&Co.
      The same applies for my German vote.

      I will vote for a tobacco control lobby free party.

      • Rose says:

        This appeared a few hours ago and I wondered why, 13 years after it was ratified.

        Tobacco and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

        “There are 180 Parties to the Convention, which is legally binding, meaning that Parties are required to take incremental action to prevent tobacco consumption, marketing and exposure, among many other measures.”

        Perhaps our governments have been trapped like flies.

        • Joe L. says:

          Perhaps our governments have been trapped like flies.

          I believe some governments have. Not signing up for the convention would surely mean a country would suffer a significant loss of funding from the WHO. Nisakiman was touching on this very subject at the (abrupt) end of his Skype conversation with Emily.

          I also find it strange that they would post this now, 13 years after it was ratified.

          And then there’s this quote:

          It also requires Parties to protect their tobacco control and public health policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.

          If it’s really about “public health,” why is there no equivalent convention requiring Parties to protect their citizens from the commercial and other vested interests of the pharmaceutical industry?

        • Rose says:

          What we were signed up to was not the finished article, many articles were decided later, so no government could really know what that had signed up to as it continued to grow.

          Baroness Thornoton explains how proud they were in contributing to these growing restrictions after 2007.

          6 May 2009
          Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I welcome the sentiment of this amendment. The Government are fully committed to implementing the articles and guidelines of the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The UK Government’s policy on engagement with the tobacco industry is to abide by the guidelines for implementation in Article 5.3.

          We take seriously our responsibilities under the FCTC. Indeed, we have already contributed as a partner country to the development of guidelines for Articles 8 and 11, which concern protection from second-hand smoke and the packaging and labelling of tobacco. We continue as partners in the development of guidelines for implementing Articles 9 and 10, which regulate the contents and disclosures of tobacco products, and we are formally facilitating the development of Article 14 guidelines on demand reduction measures concerning tobacco dependence and cessation.

          Article 5.3 guidelines were agreed at the third conference of the parties to the FCTC in November last year, and the UK worked with EU counterparts to refine, improve and gain consensus for the final guidelines. The UK Government abide by their responsibilities under the guidelines for implementing Article 5.3.”

          “At its fourth session in November 2010, the Conference of the Parties (COP) adopted guidelines for implementation of Article 14 of the WHO FCTC on “Demand reduction measures concerning tobacco dependence and cessation” (decision FCTC/COP4(8)).”

          Article 14 was in essence “sell more pharma products”

          “In an effort to reduce tobacco use, the EU and its Member States have signed up to the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).3
          The FCTC’s Article 14, through its recently adopted guidelines, demands action to promote cessation of tobacco use and provide adequate treatment for tobacco dependence.”
          Countries who have signed up to the FCTC therefore have a legal obligation to implement the recommendations of Article 14.”

          The research used in that article was funded by Pfizer.

        • Joe L. says:

          It’s possible that no governments whatsoever knew exactly what they were signing up for (e.g., the later amendments), however I believe the more powerful, Globalist-driven governments may have helped drive the FCTC over the years.

          I do believe many smaller governments (especially the ones like Greece that don’t enforce their bans stringently) were definitely hoodwinked and coerced into signing up.

  3. beobrigitte says:

    We reject the cult of selfish individualism.
    Individualism is selfish? Since when? I very much am an INDIVIDUAL ADULT who happens to be an Egalitarian. I am and have been for a long time also an adult (with all the responsibilities that come with that) an EXPECT to be treated as such.

    The Conservative manifesto is a Gruselkabinett or a Geisterbahn. Thank God I can’t vote in the general election. If I could it would be the case of an extra tick box drawn underneath the others and ticked for smokers’ rehabilitation into society, after all we (well, currently not me) PAY an extortionate amount of extra tax to the government. Surely, if that money is needed we should be treated like royalty rather than lepers!

    “A Conservative government will strengthen the hand of regulators.”
    More infantilisation to come. Perhaps we all should revert to becoming a child again? Child labour has been abolished, perhaps the Tories bring it back?

    I’ve yet to see any UKIP manifesto, to check whether their pledge to introduce smoking rooms in pubs has been excised from it, as Pat Nurse has said.
    So have I. Hopefully UKIP hasn’t forgotten that smokers are voters. If there is no-one to vote for it is good not to vote.

    Like Pat Nurse says: No one wants my vote so no one gets it.

  4. smokingscot says:

    Re UKIP.

    Their site tells us:

    “UKIP will publish its fully-costed manifesto next week in a document that will reveal significant reductions to the £14bn so-called annual foreign aid budget, as well as a cast-iron guarantee around slashing net immigration by introducing a points-based mechanism.”

    (that’s the entry on 18 May).

    Meantime all they can offer are 5 pledges, one of which is:

    “Protecting British Culture
    One legal system for all; Defending hard-won equality and free speech.”

    Like so many others I’m not sure exactly where they stand on a range of very important issues, as well as the smoking ban. The best I have been able to unearth is an August 2016 article (so well after brexit).

    “While acknowledging smoking is a “contentious issue”, Ukip believes pubs which have fire limits of less than 100 people and are not food-led should be granted smoking licences.”

    So even that’s been changed from what they said prior to the 2015 election where it was indoor smoking rooms in pubs.

  5. Clicky says:

    • smokingscot says:

      Yup, with absolutely sweet f’all to lose (they’re polling less than 3% in some surveys) and everything to gain (controversy, U.S.P, acres of print, TV even, “Brit traditions” – and things that matter to ordinary people) they still attempt to appeal to people that will never vote for them.

      I think it’s very probable that it’s just a case of it takes one to know one – and that’s why Nigel had the gumption to talk about smoking rooms and doctors not getting it right.

      Pity the poor saps fronting up for UKIP, unable to use the one thing that made them different domestically.

    • smokingscot says:

      Oh whoopee – not.

      They’ve chosen to slag off the EU TPD because:

      “The EU is literally going to be responsible for the continued sickness and ultimately death of thousands of smokers who use vaping as a way to cut down harm. All this on the altar of ill-conceived and ideologically driven lobbying.”

      As I said, go get those who”ll never vote for you whydontya!

  6. Joe Jackson says:

    The UK is uniquely spiteful to smokers? Not quite. On about the same level are: quite a few US States (though not all of them), Canada, and Australia.

    Pretty close, though.

    • Joe L. says:

      Actually, many US states and Canadian provinces are more spiteful than the UK, having instituted various outdoor smoking bans.

      However, Pat’s quote (which I believe you’re referring to here) is only contrasting British antismoking efforts with those of the rest of the EU.

  7. magnetic01 says:

    Spare a thought for smokers in the Philippines.

    Philippines president bans smoking in public, with offenders facing jail
    Philippines presidentRodrigo Duterte has signed an executive order banning smoking in public across the second-most populous country in south-east Asia, creating one of the region’s strictest anti-tobacco laws.
    The ban, which carries a maximum penalty of four months in jail and a fine of 5,000 pesos ($100), covers both indoor and outdoor smoking, presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said on Thursday.

  8. narbanor says:

    I’m wondering to what extent the notions of “nation”, “State”, and “people” are co-extensive… Two gnat’s farts away from where I’m writing this lies the Kingdom of Belgium (and thanks heavens for its half-priced [yet overly-taxed] tobacco, ‘cos I’m in no way part of the affluent elite of these despicable times!). As anti-anti-smoking folks, surely we constitute not a nation, let alone a State, but a people in its own right.
    And listening to yesterday’s Smoking section video, I came to the conclusion that nisakiman is one of my people in a very real sense.

  9. waltc says:

    Completely OT and completely hilarious. Or not so OT if you apply this excerpt to contemporary science in general or the science of shs and gw. But otherwise I. defy you to not LOL

    “Sokal and the Belgian physicist Jean Bricmont noted in their 1997 book, Fashionable Nonsense, that certain kinds of ideas can become so fashionable that the critical faculties required for the peer-review process are compromised, allowing outright nonsense to be published, so long as it looks or sounds a certain way, or promotes certain values.”

    • RdM says:

      It’s pretty funny, and disturbing & thought-provoking as well.
      I wonder what sort of leverage is possible there.
      Referencing previous nonsense in support of further nonsense, multiple times…

      I think it already happens in anti-smoking cabal publications.
      Blinding with ‘science’…

      I’m reminded;- some time ago you posted a comment (I can’t find it now) – something along the lines of cognitive dissonance, or willfully seeing something that wasn’t there (heavily paraphrasing there, I just can’t remember exactly, and I searched back a bit) – and I was reminded then of China Miéville’s weird novel The City & the City which I read a couple of years ago (along with his Embassytown) – where inhabitants of the same city perceive two entirely different cities, cultures, & etc.
      Also a murder mystery, police procedural. You might like it.

      Also, quite differently, I wonder whether you’d enjoy Kim Stanley Robinson’s “New York 2140” – which is just a fairly straightforward novel, except set in a purported flooded future New York (he’s unfortunately obviously a CAGW believer; although I also read through his Mars trilogy, I couldn’t bear to pick up his obviously CAGW influenced titles) – that I actually found quite fascinating, well, interesting, a bit of fun, quite well written.
      The social personalities are possibly quite well captured, I don’t know.
      You would know the geography much better, I had to go and look up some.
      About the same age as me! But fairly straight… I guess.

      The windup girl / Paolo Bacigalupi is a pretty cool dystopian Asian ‘near future’ too.

      Sorry about that! Recommending novels!… but the first one might genuinely interest.

  10. RdM says:

    “We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality.”
    “We see rigid dogma and ideology not just as needless but dangerous.”

    These two sentences most of all need to be addressed to MP’s re the FCTC and smoking bans.

    Similarly as mentioned before on this blog, I’d thought too when addressed with platitudes about a ‘level playing field’ and ‘equality’ – a fair go for all, if you like;- the phrase “Except For Smokers” always came to mind, in election manifestos and party advertisements here in NZ as well.

  11. nisakiman says:

    Off topic but interesting from the point of view of how the MSM shapes the narrative. There was an article in the Daily Telegraph today saying that ‘experts’ want to ban people eating fast food on trains, buses etc.

    The comments (there aren’t many) are predominantly panning the nanny state mentality, and one or two compared it to the tobacco approach. I left a comment which although was perhaps worded a little more strongly than the others, called into question the need for Public Health and its offshoots entirely. It was, I thought, a quite reasonable comment to write in a daily newspaper.

    It was deleted.

    Ban Ban ban ban ban, that’s all these interfering busybodies know. It’s well past time that all these so-called ‘experts’ in ‘Public Health’ were de-funded and told to go out and get a proper job. Preferably doing something devoid of any responsibility. Cleaning public toilets comes to mind. Damn site more useful than what they do now.

    In fact we would go a long way to solving the NHS budget problems if the whole useless mess of ‘Public Health’; fake charities like ASH, and all their attendant hangers-on were told to get their snouts out of the taxpayer trough. ASH in particular is a case in point. They receive huge amounts of taxpayer cash from the government, and then spend that cash lobbying government (which is illegal) for ever more pointless and ineffective restrictions on smoking, just to justify their existence.

    They are a pestilence, the lot of them. They serve no useful purpose, and just busy themselves with trying to make everyone as grey, miserable and conformist as they themselves are. God only knows why government continues to shower them with our money.

    Oh yes, it’s all about ‘the cheeldren’™, innit. That trump card they all like so much to play whenever their vacuous proposals are questioned.

    I’ve seen similarly strongly worded comments in the DT on many occasions, so I can’t imagine it was the delivery which they found fault with. Perhaps it was the reference to ASH which caused them to delete it.

    • RdM says:

      I’m reminded that when I was quite young, barely teens, and already interested in painting, I read, I think, “The Agony and the Ecstasy: A Biographical Novel of Michelangelo by Irving Stone” (or a young adult version of it) and seem to remember that when he moved to Rome, he was shocked at seeing people eating on the street…

  12. RdM says:

    “All right, let’s compromise… we only want a few non-eating carriages… that’s not going too far, is it? No slippery slope here, oh no. We just want to protect discerning adults from the vile smells of pasties and hamburgers, and of course children from second-hand obesity – lest they get the idea that anyone can eat anything at any time they like, anywhere!” ;=})

  13. “Perhaps our governments have been trapped like flies.”

    Not really.

    Note the important word “incremental.” Note also that there do not seem to be specific directives regarding either penalties or enforcement.

    “For this year’s progress in accordance with our WHO obligations, we are imposing an additional Smoke Free Zone in the UK. From this date forward no one is allowed to consume a tobacco product withing 6 inches of the tip of the cigar on Winston Churchill’s statue (In Trafalgar Square? I forget where it is… a nice park near Parliament? I have a pic somewhere of me standing near it!)
    Additionally, the fine for such smoking will be set a 1 pence per violation, with the fine automatically increasing by an additional pence for each decade into the future. The fines will be assessed through the assignment as an extra duty of one selected member of the secretarial pool of the Minister of Sewage’s office to be carried out as his/her other work duties allow on alternate Tuesdays of all months with 29 days in them. Upon assessing such a fine at his or her discretion, that member will then be required to fill out a 73 page fine-print form which will include notarized statements from all witnesses who were in the park at the time of said violation. Any failures in the complete record will, unfortunately result in the invalidation of the fine and the dismissal of the enforcing civil servant.”

    I think we could live with that. Of course, just to make sure that incremental advancements were indeed being made, the first step in the process would be to start with a clean slate by declaring all previous regulations on smoking suspended.

    MJM, the ever helpful regulator…

No need to log in

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.