The Fuss About Clive Bates

Our friend and defender, Dick Puddlecote, praised a person named Clive Bates today because that person defended ecigs. I am not quite sure that that person, Clive Bates, matters at all. I am not sure that what he says has any influence. Why should it? We have been demanding for months and months that ecigs should not be included in a EU ‘tobacco directive’ for the simple and obvious reason that ecigs are not ‘tobacco products’. Why should the opinion of Clive B matter more than ours? Who cares?

The reality is that the opinion of Clive B is like the opinion of an ex-torturer who has retired from torturing. He still want people to confess, but wants them to be forced to confess painlessly. He might advocate certain drugs, like ecigs, which will produce a confession painlessly. “I used to smoke 40 cigs per day, but I discovered ecigs, and now I am cured and tremendously  happy. A few months ago, I could not run ten yards. Now I can run ten miles. My ecig has saved my life. And, I am 75 years old”.

Painless confession has always been the goal of sophisticated torturers. I am not sure if I have got this right, but I think so. Cardinal Walensky, a Polish catholic cardinal, confessed, after months of brainwashing, to misleading the faithful.

It is hard to know whether Clive B is a torturer or a tortured. Does his advocacy of ecigs indicate a plea to be forgiven for his advocacy of torture of smokers? He himself said that massive taxes, deliberately aimed at smokers, were wrong. Read this:

“You told us to quit smoking. You taxed the pants off us; you’ve bullied us with your public information campaigns; you’ve racked up the stigma that we felt.

You’ve tried to stop us using these products wherever we can. You’ve hit us with massive societal disapproval. Tobacco companies haven’t done that, government and public health have done that.

So we’ve done the right thing. We’ve got off smoking; we’ve protected our health; we produce a vapour which doesn’t harm anyone; most people aren’t troubled by it. Just leave us alone! Just get off our backs!”


Just suppose, for an instant, that SHS is just as harmless as ecig vapour. Does Clive B accept that? If not, why not? The Doll Doctors Study indicated that even the heaviest of smoking does not have any effect for some thirty years. Why should a bit of SHS have any effect at all before the people exposed to it are long dead for other reasons?

Note the implication in the final paragraph, ‘we produce a vapour which doesn’t harm anyone’. Is that not just the same as a denial that SHS is dangerous?

Bates is as rabid a persecutor of smokers now as he ever was. He has just the same mindset. His attitude to ecigs is much the same as that of a person who advocates that drinkers of wine should stop doing so, and, instead, drink tea or coffee. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES drink water directly from wells and streams. That water is dangerous. DO NOT DRINK WATER UNLESS IT HAS BEEN PASSED AS SAFE BY THE EU, AND CLIVE B.

We smokers do not want to be patronised. We know that we are being deliberately milked to the extent of 700% tax on our preferred amusement. For that is what smoking is – an amusement. Smokers experience that amusement lots of times per day, even though they might be poor and under-privileged. The best way to render us less under-privileged is to massively reduce the tax on tobacco. That will be necessary anyway, since smokers have already ‘outsourced’ their sources.

What non-smokers must understand is that, the more that smokers cease to contribute taxes, the more that they themselves must contribute. It is quite comical really that non-smokers, who rail against stinking of tobacco smoke and need a shower after a night out, are the principal taxpayers whose money is wasted by various university departments. It really is comical.


I don’t really understand the fuss about Clive B. Who is he? Why does he matter? Who cares what he says? Why did he start the demonisation of smokers? Just because he was replaced by the much more rubbery Arnott does not mean that he has any affinity or tolerance for smokers. He thinks that smokers kill babies, unless he is lying.

Clive Bates says that Smokers kill babies. He says that Smokers kill babies. Arnott says that Smokers kill babies. Cameron says that Smokers kill babies. EVERYONE says that Smokers kill babies.

There is an underlying principle which has been neglected, which is that every individual person has the right to decide for himself. Further, he has the right to decide for his children. That is called ‘being a parent’. The decision by the Scottish Dictatorship that all children need a ‘named person’ to replace their parents is obscene. The word ‘obscene’ means ‘sexually corrupt’.


The BIG PROBLEM seems to be that all dictats are written in stone, no matter how weak arguments might be. Clive B will not make any difference. The TPD demands will be passed into UK law by sycophants. The sycophants are predominantly MPs who do not give a shit and give way to Zealots.

I am amazed, and will continue to be amazed by the sycophancy of MPs.



17 Responses to “The Fuss About Clive Bates”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Junican, speaking of “smokers killing babies” — I ran across this portion of a retirement party address by Antismoker Pat Lindsey from four years ago:

    “On Great American Smokeout Day each year we tried to make the news, but one event that stands out in my mind was when we clothed every Greater St. Louis area baby born on Smokeout Day in a little t-shirt that said, “I’m a born non-smoker,” and we gave their parents a folder of important information on secondhand smoke and SIDS. While Jeff Rainford was the coalition’s media consultant, we were constantly trying to think of ways to gain earned media.”

    As usual, they’ve got absolutely NO qualms about abusing children or our love of children in their campaigns.

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      That is the mindset, isn’t it? They are doing what they accuse Big Tobacco of doing – brainwashing children and using children. Does the fact that they believe that it is in a good cause excuse it?
      “I’m a born non-smoker,” I’m also born a non-eater and non-drinker. I’m a born sucker.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        “They are doing what they accuse Big Tobacco of doing – brainwashing children and using children. Does the fact that they believe that it is in a good cause excuse it?
        “I’m a born non-smoker,” I’m also born a non-eater and non-drinker. I’m a born sucker.”

        Exactly. And wonderfully put Junican!

  2. artbylisabelle Says:

    Sadly, I disagree with some of the austerity, in your words. I do appreciate however your commitment to justice and truth. As a vaper now for several years, I am proud to be free of what was robbing me of my breath, 1. because I never believed I could, 2. I was unable to stay quit using recommended methods or on my own, 3. I regained my health. I had a push comes to shove moment and I lept for it. I no longer am as sick as I was, thanks to vaping. A medical Doctor told me he would diagnose me with Emphysema and COPD, the very next time I needed and emergency room visit for breathing treatments. Most of that is behind me, but I smoked heavily for 43 years, I guess I am not one of the lucky ones it, caught up with me. I did try to use a brand that claimed less chemicals,plus a filter thingee, but it still was killing me. I realize their aught not to be a division between our groups, smokers and vapers, because we are torn from the same cloth. We enjoy our activities, or else we would bother with them. However Clive Bates is fighting for any or all Tobacco Harm Reduction along with many other brave scientists that must bare the lies of deceitful phonies that are paraded by major liberal leaning news organizations to the public. I genuinely love your blog and agree with most of your views, but on this, I beg to differ.

    • westcoast2 Says:

      For a fuller understanding of what Tobacco Harm reduction is, it is worth reading Carl V Philips’ post

    • junican Says:

      I accept your ideas. In no way do I criticise smokers for going over to ecigs. That is their personal choice and decision. You believe that ecigs have much improved your health – in fact, you know it to be so. It is so for you.
      There is the problem. I have been smoking from the age of around 17 and am now 76. I have no problems from smoking that I know of. As far as I know, I do not have LC, COPD or heart problems. Why is that?
      So it makes great sense for you to adopt the ecig. Very good sense indeed.
      My problem with people like Bates is that they started the ball rolling. They still want to persecute smokers, but not too much. When he actually comes out and says that what he advocated (things like high taxes, smoking bans and SHS danger) were just gambits, and apologies, then I might accept his conversion to THR.
      Oh… I’m really pleased that you like the blog!

  3. Rose Says:

    Clive Bates in a previous incarnation, demonstrating that a period of freezing weather is a sure sign of Global Warming.

    January 1997

    LETTER : Freeze points to need for climate action

    “Sir: Paradoxically, a severe cold spell is a very appropriate moment for a robust lead article on global warming (4 January). However, the article implies that the recent cold weather is probably a natural variation from the trend of gradual temperature increases. That is certainly possible, but it could just as easily be a perverse consequence of global warming itself.

    The extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases changes the circulation of the atmosphere and may even disrupt major systems such as the Gulf Stream. If the changed circulation means that Britain gets more of its weather from the Arctic than from the Caribbean, global warming may cause local cooling.”


    International Institute for Energy Conservation

    A few months later he became Director of ASH

    ASH News Release – 16 June 1997
    Green campaigner and marketing specialist to take charge at ASH

    The new Director of ASH, Action on Smoking and Health, has started work. Clive Bates joins ASH just as the political temperature surrounding tobacco control policy is rising sharply. He comes to ASH having previously worked for Greenpeace as a campaigner and the computer company, IBM, as a marketing specialist.”

    • junican Says:

      Nice one Rose!
      I think that there are people who have ‘an idea’ and who find pleasure and fulfilment from success. There are no real ethics involved, except in attempted justification. What they want is success. When I play chess on my electronic chess set, I get great pleasure from beating it. “Yes!”, I cry and thump my fist in the air. I think that Bates is one such person. Now, he is beginning to regret his actions in the past a little, when he did what he was told by the RCP (Royal College of Physicians, which ‘owns’ ASH). His ‘forte’ is marketing and publicity, not medicine.

  4. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    I totally agree with you Junican. I am fed up with being vilified and financially abused. I am becoming increasingly militant too !

    • junican Says:

      We must not defy the law visibly, like smoking in pubs without the publican’s permission. But we can make the laws seem stupid, and we can, to some extent, stop paying the taxes. Some years ago, I went on an organised trip to Belgium by ferry from Hull. It was a three day, two nights, sail and cost only about £50. While in Belgium, I bought 20 x 200 cigs about half price, thus saving hundreds of pounds. Also, I really enjoyed the sail and the fun on the boat.
      Perhaps the Zealot are doing us all a favour by drawing attention to the persecution of smokers via taxes.

  5. Roberto Says:

    I don’t see Clive Bates in such a negative light as you do, but I remain skeptical and have mixed feelings about people like him. Their positive side is their critique of the “quit or die” dogmatic strategy in favor of the “harm reduction” approach. The negative side is their tendency to use anti-smoking hysteria (some times viciously) in pursuing this strategy. As Carl Phillips has correctly stated, honest and ethical “harm reduction” cannot continue peddling the same disinformation on tobacco smoking that we’ve heard for decades.

    However, I think that we should give people like Bates the benefit of the doubt even if remaining skeptical. They reflect an obvious conflict within the Tobacco Control bureaucracy. To use a historical analogy with the now (fortunately) gone Soviet Union, we don’t know if pro-vaping controllers (or ex-controllers) represent some sort of “Gorbachov phenomenon” in the Tobacco Control Soviet Union. Perhaps they do, which would explain their contradictions and their unease in breaking with old dogma. Perhaps it is an internal struggle for power and resources or even a generational challenge (or all of it mixed up).

    I understand that pro-vaping reformers need to be pragmatic, that they cannot afford a total instantaneous rupture with decades long dogmatic dictatorial rulers of the TC USSR (who are still in control). I understand the practical need in promoting e-cgs while doing some of the usual lip service to the old orthodoxy. Unfortunately, some reformers seem to think that the more stridently they demonise tobacco the better they promote vaping. This wrong and in my opinion reveals dishonesty and opportunism. But as far as I’m aware, the Bates of today is not in this category (even if he was an orthodox controller in the past).

    How far will reformists like Bates will go? We will see. Perhaps the self-contradictions and rigidity of TC cannot survive the internal power struggle brought by the pragmatism of these “Gorbachov” likes. Perhaps this explains the stubborn opposition and fear mongering against e-cigs by the old TC guard. They know the USSR could not resist the Gorbachov’s reforms. Now I understand your remarks on the demise of TC not being a slow process of 30 years, but a possible sudden implosion. The sooner the better.

    • Dick Puddlecote Says:

      Agree entirely. The most considered comment I’ve seen on the matter, brilliantly put. 🙂

      • junican Says:

        Yes, well put Roberto. Where I would argue with you is on THE INTENTIONS of Bates etc. They want ownership and control of ecigs to a greater or lesser extent. From their point of view, ecigs are just another means to an end – smoking cessation. Pleasure does not enter into the equation.

  6. Samuel Says:

    A bit of the subject but salient to talk of the EU and all the trouble coming from it.

    • junican Says:

      Read that, Sam. I generally agree with standardisation of quality in trade, but not in individual aspirations.

  7. prog Says:

    Any integrity Bates has now does NOT excuse him for his collusion in one of TC’s greatest lies.

    • junican Says:

      His best quality is a sharp mind. He would not have been in marketing had that not been so. But he, along with Siegel etc, should have been pointing out that SHS cannot POSSIBLY be dangerous since all the important studies about smoking danger reveal that decades must elapse before smoking seems to kill people. That is not to say that some vulnerable people will not be affected. But those people would be affected by ANY smoke.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: