There is Always an Excuse

It seems to me that, from top to bottom, tobacco control depends upon a series of excuses.

Let us think about Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ (see sidebar). He started the study in 1951. Somehow, he got enough money to mail 60,000 doctors in the UK to ask about their smoking habits. For some reason, the body which was the vehicle for that study was ‘Tropical Hygiene’ (I forget the full name). What ‘Tropical Hygiene’ had to do with smoking is not clear. By the way, the word ‘hygiene’ meant ‘health’, and not as has come to be the meaning, ‘cleanliness’. Some 40,000 doctors agreed to take part in the study. Some doctors were already ‘getting on’ and some were quite young. The great majority of them were smokers in one form or another, whether it be pipe, cigar or cigarette. Because a lot of the doctors were already ‘getting on’, Doll was supplied with a steady stream of death certificates. Even after only two or three years, he was able to produce a report which indicated that, proportionately, very few doctors who did not smoke, died from lung cancer, whereas far more doctors who smoked, proportionately, did so. Thus, if, say, 1 in 100 non-smokers died from LC, 15 in 100 smokers died from LC – 15 times greater. But the reality is that very few doctors died from LC – some 7%. 93% died from something else. If I was examining those figures, I would be curious about why so few non-smoking doctors died from LC.

Another factor is the time-scales, which is very important. Smoking for decades had no adverse effect until around the age of 60. When I say ‘smoking’, I mean inhaling clouds of tobacco smoke. Sorry for the use of the word ‘clouds’, but you get the idea.

If actual inhaling ‘clouds’ of tobacco smoke takes decades to have a deleterious effect, why should whiffs of tobacco smoke in the air not take centuries to have an effect?

And therein lies the ‘Excuse’. It is perfectly clear, based upon the ‘Doctors Study’ and all the other similar studies,  that SHS would take centuries to cause LC. If I can see that clear indication, ‘academics’ must surely have known it be so. In fact, in a TV interview, Doll himself said that he would not be worried about being in the same room as a smoker.

So it is clear that the timescale for SHS danger was ignored, and that SHS danger was just an EXCUSE to impose smoking bans. The EXCUSE of SHS danger has continued to be used by TobCoN against all rational thought, and the irrational thought has spread throughout the world. How on Earth could that happen?

I really, really do not understand. Like Frank Smith I was utterly astonished when the ‘Smoking Ban’ was obeyed. I did not believe that it would happen. I really, really believed that it would be ignored. How stupid of me! I should have remembered that the witch hunts of a past era required the participation of ordinary people who reported the imaginary devilry of black-clad widows or spinsters, with their black cats, to provide the EXCUSE to terrify the populace.

For is it not true that terrifying the populace is the objective? How can you gain control over millions of people unless you terrify them?

Perhaps people like Simon Clark from ‘Forest’ should take note that almost all tobacco control involves frightening people.

It seems that Trump, in America, is trying to reverse the terror. Instead of Americans being terrified, he has decided to frighten foreigners. Is that Xenophobia?  Au Contraire! It puts the onus to prove lack of xenophobia onto those who wish to enter the USA. It is the jihadists who are xenophobic.

If we think of ‘Xenophobia’ as excluding ‘undesirables’, it is easy to see how TobCoN is worse than any border control ideas. TobCoN is the essence of inbred brother/sister insemination, and it is deliberately so.

‘Control’, on the level of self determination,  is an excrescence which any sensible politician should abjure, disown and fight against. A person cannot exercise self determination whilst being ‘under control’.

What is weird is that people have to be free to disobey laws to show that they are ‘free’. But the ‘Bully State’ is a monopoly. Is there one MP who has the erudition to show how dangerous and damaging the use of terror tactics are?

Tell me the name of even ONE!

7 Responses to “There is Always an Excuse”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Like you Junican i am amazed all this legislation is obeyed. Even more amazing is that in a pub i comply as well ! We need a mass non compliance demo.

    • Rose Says:

      No one is willing to get the landlord a £2,500 fine, that’s why everyone complies.

    • junican Says:

      As Rose implies, the legislation was designed force publicans etc to enforce the ban, and they had no option but to do so. A £50 fine for smoking in a pub was a joke. The real ‘punishment’ was directed at the publicans. Magistrates accepted the idea that publicans could not claim ‘not my fault – I cannot control what people do’. They interpreted the legislation to impose a duty on publicans to STOP people from smoking in pubs, not just to disallow it. Thus, huge notices saying, “NO SMOKING” were not enough. Publicans had a duty to actually use force to stop smoking in their pubs.
      The curious thing to me is that Pub Associations did nothing at all to defend their members.
      What should have happened is that the first prosecution should have been fought through the courts, even to the House of Lords – the Supreme Court at the time.
      The situation is now irrecoverable. The damage is done. The situation is exactly the same as the legal position in which Jews found themselves in Nazi Germany.

      • Timothy Goodacre Says:

        They allowed the suicide of their industry Junican. Because lets face it, it has died !

  2. Rose Says:

    Pete Robinson: The British Pub – A thesis on it’s decline and fall

    “For 450 years British pubs and their smoking customers have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship that has survived essentially unchanged through wars, periods of extreme poverty and famine, riots, massive social change, the Industrial Revolution, the English Civil War, WW2 rationing, licencing and taxation, opening hour restrictions, many recessions, and a great deal more besides.

    Throughout that long and stormy history pubs have NEVER closed in the anything like the numbers they have since July 1st 2007, not even 100 or so years ago when magistrates pursued a policy of drastically reducing pub numbers by refusing to renew licences.

    There are pubs closing today that have been serving their communities for 400 years. Imagine the tales these iconic watering holes could tell but tragically they are lost to our culture forever.”

    “Yes, pubs have occasionally waned in popularity. In recent times the mass arrival of TV in the 1960s caused a temporary drop off, and there was some gradual erosion in trade throughout the 80’s and 90’s due at least in part to the plod’s manic enforcement of the drink-drive laws along with newly introduced jail terms for offenders.

    However since the new millennium pubs had fought their way back to health and by 2006 were more popular than ever, with The Publican reporting overall turnover at a FIVE-YEAR-PEAK. We’d never had it so good, and things could only get better still.

    Smokers accounted for over HALF of that income.

    Then the trade went collectively mad and ushered in the blanket smoking ban with barely a murmur of protest. The majority of front-line publicans were intelligent enough to have grave concerns. But their voice was drowned out by those upper echelons of the industry, men-in-suits, who presume to speak for us.

    Driven by pure greed we were won over by a barrage of bogus statistics coming from ASH, CRUK and the DoH ‘proving’ that we’d keep our existing smoking customers who’d simply accept the ban as meekly as we had.

    The icing on the cake was to be the countless millions of ‘new’ non-smoking customers who were poised like a coiled spring, awaiting the starting pistol on July 1st 2007 to risk serious injury in the crush to pack our pubs to the rafters as they quaffed pint after pint in such quantities you would need to employ a team of cellarmen to support all the extra bar staff you’d need – and a SecuriCorps van to bank your takings.

    This better class of customer was termed ‘NewBreed’ and we were promised he’d set the tills ringing as soon as we’d driven out the riff-raff. The advice was to steam-clean, fumigate and redecorate throughout replacing curtains and fabrics wherever possible. At all costs we must completely eradicate any evidence that that society’s scum had ever been there. The ‘New Breed’ of customer wouldn’t like that.

    So we built a few half-open cattle sheds in our pubs’ back yards and banished the most loyal, better spending half of our customers out into the cold and rain expecting them to be grateful. After all the stats did say most smokers secretly wanted to quit and really we’d be doing ’em a favour!

    Of course NewBreed was merely a clever figment of the anti-smoking lobby’s imagination, but even savvy pubco bosses bought it hook, line and sinker. Strong objections from organisations such as CAMRA evaporated in a wave of hysteric euphoria as it seemed everyone ’embraced’ the new age of endless prosperity to come.

    From the day of the ban’s inception pubs immediately began to shed customers, and haven’t yet plugged the leak.
    We forgot that pubs were built by the pennies of the common man, yet we tried to move upmarket in a vain attempt to satisfy a demand that never existed.”
    http: //

    The Publican – now shut down as well.

    • junican Says:

      Very interesting, Rose, and so true.

      • Rose Says:

        Famous last words.

        Millions will return to the Pub after Smoking Ban – 20/02/07

        “A new survey by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) has revealed the public’s attitudes to the forthcoming smoking ban in England and Wales later in 2007.

        The sample survey’s key findings indicated that:

        6.2 million people (17% of all adults in England and Wales) who visit pubs regularly are likely to visit pubs more often. Of that group 97% were non-smokers.

        840,000 people who currently never go to a pub said they will after the smoking ban. Added to the figure for people who currently visit regularly that is a total of 7,040,000 people who will visit pubs more often.

        93% of real ale drinkers said they would be more likely to visit pubs more often or that their visiting habits would not be changed by the ban. See table 1.

        68% of regular smokers say it will not change their pub visiting habits at all.

        69% of all adults said it would not affect their visits to pubs at all, only 3% said they would not visit pubs at all as a result of the ban.

        Smokers are typically lager drinkers (43% of lager drinkers said they smoke). See table 2

        CAMRA Chief Executive Mike Benner said: “This survey shows that non-smokers will be attracted to pubs after the ban comes into force, and many of them would like to find a real ale waiting for them when they get there.

        “The smoking ban will be a difficult transition for licensees, but it is encouraging that only 3% of people surveyed by CAMRA said they would not visit pubs at all as a result of the ban. The key will be to ensure that other factors such as quality of real ale, food, atmosphere and welcome are all superb. If this is the case then the traditional Community Pub will have a bright and healthy future.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: