“Smokefree Coalition” Closes Its Doors

The New Zealand government has de-funded them. Therefore, that organisation has collapsed. So, it only existed in the first place because government funded it. Why did it exist in the first place? What was it for?

It is all very weird. According to its ‘spokesperson’, it has been responsible for all sorts of wonderful things, such as plain packaging:

“And it was that unity that made us able to achieve plain packaging; the ban on retail tobacco displays; reduced duty free allowances, smokefree bars, restaurants, workplaces and prisons; and annual tax increases.

“These are all measures that have saved countless lives and helped avoid untold suffering by creating a national environment where smoking is no longer cool or even normal – and making it much harder for tobacco companies to convince New Zealanders and their children that it is.”

(H/T Harleyrider via Frank Davis)

Erm…. If it was so successful, why has it been de-funded?

The fact is that the government of NZ has tardily realised that that organisation has been a leach on public funds. It served no purpose other than enriching certain people. There will be no investigation of that fraud, of course. Nor will NZ politicians demand an investigation.

When you think about it, the antipathy to Brexit amongst most politicians, from whatever Party, is very odd. If some 70% of politicians were in favour of ‘Remain’, why could they not put up a reasonable list of attributes in defence of the EU? Why did they need to have ‘project fear’ when they could have produced good reasons for ‘Remain’? I mean solid benefits of the EU. Why could they not produce such benefits?

I’ll tell you why. It is because the EU has gone beyond what is feasible at this time in history. Economically, for the foreseeable future, Greece will NOT become equivalent to Germany. Riches are not the important thing. Pleasure in life is the important thing. Banquets may matter to the Elite, but sitting in the shade on a hot, sunny day, munching a hamburger, is just as enjoyable. Different countries have different lifestyles.

It is not possible to ‘reform’ the EU. It is like the later days of the Roman Empire. The bureaucracy is too embedded to be comprehensible. Who could possibly know which pieces to cut out?

Is there any answer? There is. De-funding. It is that simple, just as the ‘Smokefree Coalition’ was de-funded. That is all that is required.

Advertisements

11 Responses to ““Smokefree Coalition” Closes Its Doors”

  1. Frank J Says:

    Provided we appoint a Health Minister who’ll do it! As it’s the DoH that mostly funds these money sucking nurseries that’s where we have to start.

    Let us not forget that it’s the green benches that sanctioned the smoking ban and pressure should be kept up on those idiots.

    • junican Says:

      The pattern is obvious, but was not always so. First, get lots of quotes in the MSM and lots of comments or letters to the editor. ‘Lots of’ means a few dozen – that’s all it takes. Then start furiously lobbying MPs that matter, quoting loads of junk science. Threaten MPs with exposure to accusations of murdering babies, etc.
      So absolutely yes. It is the timidity of MPs which is at the root of the problem.
      Could MPs have done differently? Yes they could. They could have demanded proper investigation of the junk science, especially as it applies to the seriousness of ‘harm’ from SHS, for example.

  2. Darryl Says:

    “Why did it exist in the first place? What was it for?”

    So the powers that be could implement the anti-smoker agenda without it looking like it was a top down thing. Make it look like the taxes and bans were a response to public pressure over a genuine concern for public health.

    The whole anti-smoker thing sets the precedent that it is OK for the state to try and manage personal behaviour. All for our own good.

    Now that the agenda has been achieved groups like Smokefree Coalition are surplus to requirements, I’m thinking Lenin’s “useful idiots” here. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    “Pleasure in life is the important thing”

    I totally agree.

    • junican Says:

      See my reply to Frank J above. I disagree. The smoker persecution was carefully orchestrated by the likes of Doll and fellow travellers via the UN and the WHO. It WAS top down, and from the highest possible level – higher than National Governments. Elected Governments were presented with ‘evidence’ which was supposedly irrefutable. In any case, MPs, and especially Government Ministers, had no way to contest the evidence. They had to accept it.
      But that does not exonerate politicians in any way at all. Government Ministers should have taken advice on how to verify the evidence put before them.

  3. Rose Says:

    Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air pollution and lung cancer.
    2002

    Monday, 02 December 2002

    “Delegates attending an international conference in London today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Great London Smog of 1952, which caused an estimated 12,000 deaths, will hear how governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead.

    Professor Virginia Berridge of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine’s History Unit has researched papers relating to cabinet committee meetings in the late ’50s looking into smoking, air pollution and lung cancer. She asserts that although there were clear political reasons for obscuring the link between air pollution and lung cancer, other factors, including a shifting public health agenda, which focused on an individual’s responsibility for their health rather then environmental influences, were also key in ensuring that the issue of air pollution was ‘damped down’.

    ‘If you look at the manner in which the public health agenda has shifted since the aftermath of the Great Smog right up until the rise of the environmental movement in the 1980s, you can see that ‘smoke’ – be it atmospheric pollutants or cigarette smoke – has been a continuous symbol throughout the period’, she observes.

    In 1953, Dr Guy Scadding, speaking on the television programme Matters of Medicine, had expressed a belief that air pollution was as much a factor in whether someone developed lung cancer as smoking, citing the significantly higher number of deaths from the disease among those living in polluted cities, as opposed to the countryside, and assuming that rates of smoking were likely to be similar in both populations.

    A few years later, in 1957, the Medical Research Council was planning to issue a statement saying although smoking was a significant cause of lung cancer, up to 30% of cases might be caused by air pollution. But the Cabinet committee on cancer of the lung, fearful of another political embarrassment which could be caused by stressing the air pollution connection, asked the MRC to reconsider its statement. On 31 May 1957 a modified version was published, which asserted that although it was likely that atmospheric pollution did play a role in lung cancer, it was ‘a relatively minor one in comparison with cigarette smoking’.

    A committee was appointed by the Royal College of Physicians in 1959 to consider both the connection between smoking and air pollution, and to produce a report. But when it met on 17 March 1960, it decided to publish a separate report, giving smoking priority.

    ‘It was agreed that the evidence would be of an entirely different quality and nature’, explains Professor Berridge. ‘It was pointed out that individuals could avoid the dangers of smoking but not those of pollution. It was also thought that a section on atmospheric pollution within the main report might detract from the main arguments on smoking and lung cancer’.

    ‘What was happening in this committee was a shift away from a concept of health and wellbeing related to an individual¹s environment, occupation, class or work, towards one focused strongly on that individual’s responsibility for his or her health, which smoking came to symbolise. After the 1962 report, it was smoking and the type of public health which it epitomised which was to become the central public health issue. Smoking was something which the individual could do something about; air pollution was not,’ explains Professor Berridge.”
    http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/pressoffice/press_releases/2002/smogpollution.html

    “The new School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine was opened in its present building in Keppel Street, a gift from the Rockefeller Foundation.
    At that time, the term ‘hygiene’ was not restricted to its current meaning of ‘cleanliness’ or ‘sanitary science’, but was used in the wider sense of the establishment and maintenance of health – now more usually described as ‘public health’

    Old prospectus http ://www.lshtm.ac.uk/study/intro no longer available

    Rockefeller – Southern Baptists, anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, funded the Anti-Saloon League, active in Prohibition, owners of Standard Oil, diversifying into drugs.

    They couldn’t get permission for a version of the NHS in America, so they moved here.

    • junican Says:

      I remember that, Rose. It is astonishing how politicians hid the truth. You would have thought that the Opposition would have picked it up and made a fuss. But suppose the Opposition want smoking to be demonised also?
      That is how disastrous decisions are made. The voice of reason gets lost in the political manoeuvring.

      • Rose Says:

        I’m a great believer in observations made at the time and by people with access to the figures.

        “Bessy Braddock, Labour MP for Liverpool Exchange, drew attention to the urban–rural divide in the figures and favoured an environmental explanation. ‘In view of the fact that cigarette and pipe smoking goes on all over the country, it is folly to say that it is the main cause of lung cancer.”
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2829889/

        The deadly industrial smogs of the time seem to have been edited out over the years.

      • junican Says:

        At least Bessie B checked the facts. It is odd that the Authorities took steps to reduce pollution of the air without ascribing illnesses to that pollution.

      • Rose Says:

        The authorities knew perfectly well that the pollution was causing illness, and believed that, at least in part, that their policies were responsible, like sending all the clean coal for export and forcing everyone else to use the dirty, sulphurous coal.
        The deaths were happening in every industrial city in the country every time their was a bad smog, but it was the Great London Smog that finally made them clean up their act.

        60 years since the great smog of London – in pictures
        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2012/dec/05/60-years-great-smog-london-in-pictures

        Remember goose necked flares? If memory serves, the last time I saw them on the local roundabout was in the late 70’s.
        I had just got married and I had to go round the roundabout to get to work.

      • junican Says:

        I don’t know what you mean by ‘goose necked’, but I very vaguely remember naked flames at roundabouts and such when the smog was really bad.

      • Rose Says:

        Like a watering can with a flame coming out of the spout, there’s a picture of one on the Guardian smog link.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: