The Upcoming Coercive Home Smoking Bans

Last week I wrote to my MP to protest against the coercion of prisoners in UK prisons: prisoners are now being forced to stop smoking. It is perhaps the most obvious and blatant example of coercion by Tobacco Control. The prisoners are, quite literally, a captive population who can be forced to submit to any measures whatsoever. They also form a laboratory population on whom different experimental forms of coercion can be used, out of sight of public scrutiny. The results of these experiments will then be used to extend successful coercive measures to the wider population outside the prison system.

For Tobacco Control is essentially coercive in nature. It always acts to reduce the freedom of smokers. Initially, it was only mildly coercive, banning smoking on some carriages on public transport. But it is always becoming more and more coercive. After each new level of coercion has been successfully employed (i.e. has not met with resistance), the level of coercion is ratcheted up another notch. So, after smoking was banned on some carriages or compartments on public transport, it was fairly soon extended to all carriages or compartments – something that was probably thought to be a little too coercive to do from the outset.

It was only when smoking had already been banned everywhere on public transport, and in most public buildings (museums, cinemas, theatres, etc) that it was felt possible (in 2007 in the UK) to extend smoking bans to all pubs, cafes, and restaurants. In this case, the coercion extended beyond smokers to the employees in these establishments, who were to act as unpaid police to ensure compliance by their customers.

At the same time, smoking bans began to extend outdoors. In hospitals, indoor smoking bans began to be extended to hospital grounds, and even to neighbouring streets. The same began to happen around schools. And public parks and beaches began to introduce piecemeal bans. On 1 July 2011, the 4th anniversary of the 2007 ban, the BBC reported:

A Buckinghamshire town is considering banning smoking from its streets.

Councillor Paul Bartlett has proposed a new bylaw to outlaw smoking in any public place in Stony Stratford.

If the plan is approved by the town council, smokers who light up in public in the town could face on-the-spot fines.

“Stony Stratford is a historic town which is blighted by cigarette butts,” said Mr Bartlett.

“The plan that I am trying to put forward is for smoking to be banned in public in the High Street, surrounding streets, and preferably elsewhere as well.”

This proposed ban triggered a protest that was attended by not only several hundred smokers but also by several high profile politicians (e.g. Nigel Farage), and also received TV coverage. Here for once Tobacco Control’s latest coercive proposals met with resistance. They’d gone too far, too fast. Although that didn’t stop them for continuing to call for outdoor smoking bans.

And at the same time, long after smoking had been banned on public transport, moves began to made to ban smoking in private cars, this time where children were present. And tobacco displayed in shops had to be concealed.

And while tobacco advertising had long been banned, tobacco products now began to be used to advertise the dangers of smoking to the smokers who bought them: an example of advertising being inverted to serve an opposite purpose – to dissuade customers from buying a product. Another feature of this measure was the mendacious name that was given to it: “plain packaging”. This was mendacious because the new packages were anything but plain: they were covered in loud warnings and obscene images. The warnings were also mendacious, with the probabilities associated with smoking exaggerated into certainties.

Lying has become standard practice for Tobacco Control. And so when they were caught by surprise by the appearance of vaping products, they very rapidly declared, without a shred of evidence, that these new products were just as dangerous as the tobacco products they were designed to replace. So now vaping has been as quickly banned almost everywhere that smoking is banned.

For Tobacco Control, the end – eradicating smoking –  always justifies the means. And so any degree of coercion (or lying) will be acceptable to Tobacco Control if it succeeds in eradicating smoking. This is why Tobacco Control has supported the extreme measures of Islamic fundamentalist organisations like ISIS in severely punishing smoking, and even executing smokers. For Tobacco Control is itself an extremist organisation. Its only concern is that it will one day be recognised as an extremist organisation whose values are antithetical to those of civil society.

Tobacco Control is always using more and more extreme forms of coercion to achieve its aims. And this naturally entails telling bigger and bigger lies.

One lie that Tobacco Control is using is that it is “helping” smokers to stop smoking. This is usually accompanied by the lie that 70% of all smokers want to stop smoking (in reality, 95% don’t want to stop smoking). But these twin lies can be used to portray Tobacco Control as acting benignly to help people, rather than – as is actually the case – coercing them into submission.

The current highly coercive smoking bans being introduced in prisons (which are the prisoners’ own homes) are almost certain, sooner or later, to be introduced in ordinary people’s own homes. The prison smoking bans appear to be being introduced prison by prison, rather than in all prisons simultaneously. They also appear to be accompanied by riot squads who can forcibly suppress any prison revolts that may (and very often do) result from the complete suppression of all smoking. This suggests that there is now in existence a mobile riot squad which can be moved from one prison to the next, as smoking bans are introduced in first one prison and then another.

And the same riot squads may then be used to suppress revolts in public housing, as they begin to be introduced after prison smoking bans have been completed. We can expect to see armed police present in large numbers when smoking bans are introduced in first public housing and then private housing. There will be house-to-house searches for tobacco and vaping products. Only when it is felt that 100% compliance with the home smoking ban in one district has been achieved will the armed police be withdrawn and relocated to the next district where private smoking is to be completely suppressed.

In this manner, home smoking (as well as all outdoor smoking) will be gradually suppressed everywhere. It may even be that the suppression of home smoking will be preceded by residents of selected districts being publicly informed of an impending total smoking ban in all homes, in order to give residents time in which to smoke their last cigarettes. It may also be that all homes will be required to be fitted with smoke detectors that are able to identify tobacco smoke.

And then, once all smokers have been forced to stop smoking, the same procedure will then be used to stop them drinking alcohol, or eating meat or salt or sugar, or doing anything else that has been deemed “unhealthy” or “antisocial” or “unacceptable”.

About Frank Davis

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

12 Responses to The Upcoming Coercive Home Smoking Bans

  1. Tony says:

    Yes, we’re living in very dangerous times. Tobacco Control must be fully exposed and destroyed as soon as possible and the ring leaders prosecuted to the full extent of the law. “Public Health” too.

    I’d like to take issue with one remark you make though – sorry, a bit of a rant coming up:
    “probabilities associated with smoking”
    As far as I can tell there are no probabilities associated with smoking. Also, I have long objected to the use of the term “risk factor” which is used to supposedly calculate the number of deaths due to smoking (or alcohol etc). The mathematics does not and cannot ever work (Alice in Wonderland arithmetic) even in purely mathematical terms.

    But more recently I’ve realised that the word “risk” is also a lie in itself. In reality all that TC has are correlations. These do not imply a “risk” in any way shape or form unless causality has been established. For example sun screen is strongly correlated with skin cancer. So in their terms you would be taking a “risk” by using it.

    I saw a twitter account recently that was arguing for higher standards of science [sic] in public health and better use of language. The example I saw was about the importance of distinguishing between “hazard” and “risk”.
    “hazard” was illustrated by a picture of a calm sea.
    “risk” was shown by a picture of the sea with a big shark breaking surface, teeth at the ready.

    This is what they want the public to think when they hear the word “risk”. This is why I think we should go out of our way in condemning the use of it. That Twitter account was presumably run by public health or TC mobsters.

    End of rant.

    • garyk30 says:

      A partially filled bath tub is a risk factor for drowning.

      • Tony says:

        Maybe. I agree that “risk” is appropriate, though I wonder if “risk factor” is a useful term even then. There’s a clear causal mechanism and actual deaths that can be counted. But I don’t see how you could call it a factor in those deaths. My objection in any case, is to the use of “relative risk” based on correlation alone and “risk factor” based on the RR.

        • garyk30 says:

          Actually, there is a definition of hazard and risk,

          Hazard is something that could cause harm
          Risk = Hazard plus exposure

          A partially filled bathtub would be a hazard for drowning and my getting into that tub would put me at risk of drowning.

          Then there is the issue of the probability of harm happening; and, that is an issue that is very seldom mentioned by ‘healthists’.

          The possibility for being killed by a shark is 1 in 11.5 million.
          That is a probability of 0.00000009
          That is not much greater than that death happening in a bathtub, which is 0.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Tucker Carlson:

          Guns don’t kill people, bathtubs do

        • Tony says:

          If tobacco smoke was a proven hazard then perhaps exposure to it could be described as a risk but it isn’t so it can’t.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I’m not going to disagree with your rant. My point was about the way that probabilities (even improbabilities) metamorphose into absolute certainties in the hands of Tobacco Control:

      Like the statement on the tobacco packet in front of me right now that says “Smoking causes heart attacks.” There’s no room for uncertainty in that statement. It’s being asserted as a cast iron fact. It’s more or less saying that if you light a cigarette, you can expect a heart attack three minutes later. Or could be interpreted as meaning that. And in fact that’s what they want people to believe. Because nobody’s going to light a cigarette if they thought there would be such a direct cause-and-effect relation. They’ll tell any lie if it will stop someone smoking. And they’ll tell it over and over again (because these messages are printed on millions of tobacco packets).

      • waltc says:

        Doesn’t matter if the heart attack is 3 minutes or 3 decades later, the point they make is that your smoking caused it –and I guess implicitly, if you don’t smoke (therefore) you’ll never get a heart attack.

        Here’s an interesting sidebar to that. In 2002, preceding a push for wider bans, the NYC Health Dept ran a large ad in the Ny Times that went “WARNING. Just 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can greatly increase your risk of a heart attack.”

        When, thru a letter, a friend and I challenged to DOH to back this up, it responded by primarily citing a Japanese study (Otsuka) Here’s a summary of it. Otsuka et al exposed 15 healthy 20-somethings to an unspecified amount of smoke for half an hour and concluded ” no effect on basal coronary flow velocity, heart rate or blood pressure” but a minute and quickly reversible reduction in “coronary flow velocity reserves.” (JAMA, vol 286, Jul 25, 2001) Not mentioned, but surely not just BTW, the same kind of changes had been found in another study of people who’d just eaten dinner.

        That was It. The four other studies they cited had nothing to do with 30 minutes and were epiidemiological meta-analyses that the New England Journal of Medicine had previosly called exceptionally weak –one of them by (you guessed it) Glantz, another by the equally biased A.Judson Wells (whose work had been busted by the Congressional Research Service as “implausible”) and two other studies of the same sort that had purposely and admittedly excluded exculpatory studies from the mix of their meta, and had nonetheless only produced rr’s of 1.2

        Just more solid proof of how they lie and how they get away with it.

        • Joe L. says:

          Doesn’t matter if the heart attack is 3 minutes or 3 decades later, the point they make is that your smoking caused it

          If they could reliably reproduce an experiment where heart attacks occurred within minutes of smoking a cigarette, the Antis could actually make a claim for causation (they obviously can’t, and never will be able to).

          However, I can’t fathom how they can get away with claiming an ailment that presents itself decades in the future can be “caused” by smoking. It is so blatantly unscientific to ignore all of the physiological and environmental variables (such as stress, or simply age) that one encounters in that lengthy duration of time.

          The fact that “scientific” journals accept and publish psuedoscientific “studies” like this is disgusting and harmful to the future of science and by extension, humanity itself.

  2. Vinny Gracchus says:

    They are a;ready expanding bans in the United States to entire cities (Laguna Beach in Orange County; Santa Barbara in Santa Barbara County, California), city streets in entire downtown areas (Denver, Colorado), public housing (nationwide), and residential apartments and attached homes in many California cities. Outdoor smoking at restaurants is now widely prohibited throughout California (many individual cities including Los Angeles); universities and college campuses nationwide are also banning smoking outdoors. Similar antismoking hysteria is evident in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada with extreme outdoor bans.

    The antismoker propaganda is clearly co-ordinated among he tobacco control functionaries as they use the same buzzwords and catch phrases to justify their incremental prohibition and persecution of smokers. The media is complicit blindly publishing the exaggerations and lies. Dissent is actively suppressed. It;s like watching the build up to the October Revolution where all opposing parties are systematically eradicated month by month until only one player remains in power. Tobacco control isn’t a grassroots movement. It is well orchestrated imposition of power. Its architects understand power and manipulating public perception and political processes. Their antismoking science may be flawed (much of it certainly is based on exaggeration, fabrications, and lies and seem in the falsehoods surrounding second hand smoke and ‘heart attack miracles’ after the imposition of bans) but they certainly understand marketing and propaganda.

    Tobacco control must be destroyed. The first step is exposing their lies and corruption of science and the political process.

  3. smokingscot says:

    Seems they’re very keen to meet their self-imposed target of Scotland becoming a “smoke-free” country by 2034 and England by 2040.

    I’ve checked and it seems NZ has pushed their target from 2020 to 2025. However even they have not gone the smoking in one’s own home route yet.

    Their definition of a smoke-free country is that less than 5% of the adult population smoke.

    As things stand, and California as well as NYC are some ways down this route, it seems they’ll concentrate on social housing, then multi-occupancy housing (flats/apartment) in the rented sector. In this they’ll almost certainly use the same tactics they did for businesses; scare the willies out of them by stating they’re prepared to sue the living daylights out of any landlord if any tenant or occupier in the building gets a smoking related disease.

    They may then be able to use that against the owners of the freehold in cases of leasehold properties in England.

    For the rest of us, namely those who live in our own bought and paid for property that’s freehold, well they’re perfectly happy to take up any case of children who may develop any sort of smoking related illness.

    It’s very unlikely they’ll be able to get everything through to legislation in the medium term, but they are working with social housing providers to get new tenants to sign up to a smoke-free property. It’s all rather patchy at the moment with some going with it and others fearful of being able to police it.

    However they may be able to avoid the really tricky ones, like private rentals and home owners if the thrust of today’s report comes to pass.

    Sadly – for them – I shall continue to be part of the 5% within their “smoke-free” paradise!

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.