Tobacco Control of “Children”

I was vaguely watching a programme on TV tonight called ‘The Street’. The episode was one of several. It was a good story.

The story was that a teacher had been accused of ‘interfering with’ one or more young girls around 12 years old. An ‘official complaint’ had been lodged with the authorities and the teacher was suspended. All sorts of agonies ensued, but the crucial bit was that the teacher had lied in his application for the post. He had not revealed that he had a criminal conviction, or that the criminal conviction was for ‘indecent exposure’. The event had occurred many years ago when he was a student, when he and a couple of friends had ‘mooned’ (dropping trousers and showing arses). They were dragged before magistrates and convicted of ‘indecent exposure’. That event was a joke, a laugh, of no consequence whatsoever.

But the fact that he failed to report the criminal conviction for ‘indecent exposure’ on his application for the post suggested that he was a nasty paedophile. He had lied. Therefore, all his statements in the current case were lies.

The programme was quite harrowing in that it showed how a person’s life can be destroyed by false accusations. His children were wonderfully supportive, but his wife doubted him. He felt that he had to leave home when his wife failed to believe him 100%.

But there was a tiny scene in the taxi when the driver, who knew him personally, said: “Mothers kill to protect their children. If they have to deny their husbands, parents, etc, to protect their children, then they will do so”.

In the end, the story ended reasonably happily when the girl who was supposed to have been ‘interfered with’ said that she supported the teacher’s version of the events! That is, nothing happened.

What I took from that story was: “Mothers kill to protect their children”. That is an interesting idea. I would not take it literally, but the idea of appealing to mothers to protect children is a more than intellectual and more than emotional. It is ANIMAL INSTINCT. It is basic instinct. It overrides all other considerations.

Tobacco Control has deliberately and unashamedly been promoting ‘harm to children’ where no harm exists, and they have massively distorted politics as a result.

What amazes me is that the clever buggers in Tobacco Companies did not see what was happening. I do not mean in a cynical way. I mean investigating the truth. Doll’s ‘Doctors study’ showed that smoking doctors succumbed earlier than non-smoking doctors, but most of the doctors lived to a reasonable age for the time. Why did Tobacco Companies not throw massive funding into finding out THE TRUTH?

THE TRUTH is the most important thing. I despair that THE TRUTH will never never be revealed.

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Tobacco Control of “Children””

  1. Samuel Says:

    The tobacco companies (the few that remain) have benefited from tobacco control. They do not have any reason to fund any studies on the harms (possible) of their products.
    What if they did fund genuine research?
    If they confirmed that tobacco harms people they would be in the position of making the rope they hang by.
    If, instead, their studies showed no significant harm they would be discredited and so would the researchers who accepted their money. There’s no winning either way.
    But, aside from that, they have greatly benefited.
    The government, through its bans and restrictions and taxes, etc. has only inconvenienced smokers and other, regular, people. Fewer places sell tobacco and may charge more for their products from lack of competition. Fewer farmers grow tobacco so the few who do also may charge more from lack of competition and the few remaining “big tobacco” companies bought out all their competitors leaving them with what is, in effect, a government granted (and protected) monopoly.
    Few percentage points have been lost of the number of people who smoke and these huge monopolies are better positioned to peddle their wares in other countries where competition lacks the resources to displace them from the shelves. Even where packaging has been reduced to bland sameness and smeared with “medical porn” they have their monopoly and their customers and, what’s even better, because of the added costs to comply with government taxes and regulations they can pack their cigarettes with the worst of the crop while charging premium prices and buyers have no recourse.
    Government interference in private markets is always welcomed by the companies that are well positioned to grow at the expense of former competitors.

    • junican Says:

      I agree with everything that you say except the usefulness of TobCom’s research. Enstrom and Kabat started their study of SHS financed by the USA Cancer Society. When it began to appear that the facts did not back up SHS harm, the Cancer Society withdrew its funding. TobComs funded the final parts of the study. Sure, E and K were viciously attacked, but they both won in the end. They and their works have more recognition now than they would ever have had had they not been viciously attacked.
      I could see TobComs using researchers who are near or at retirement. Why should such people care about vicious attacks provided that they are well paid? But they must be allowed freedom from bias. I also see such research as being about pleasure and personal autonomy rather than health. EG, is the medical porn on cig packets distasteful? Would respondents like to see similar medical porn on bottles of whiskey? Do mothers believe that their children should be brainwashed in school? Are mothers in favour of the State deciding what their children should eat? TobComs have lots of money. Why should they not fund research on matters which are not connected with tobacco? What would happen if the Scottish Whiskey Assn funded research on tobacco matters? Why should it not? I am amazed that food companies, drinks companies, salt companies, etc, have not already sussed out that they must fund research FOR EACH OTHER.
      It is really weird how the EU seems to be determined to extinguish competition. We shall shortly be back to Ford’s standards. “You can chose any colour provided that it is black”.

  2. kin_free Says:

    Ths is a comment I left on the Guardian story about plain packs the other day – similar to Samuels comment above. I note that every time Big tobacco CONTROL get another ordnance passed by governments, it only ever seems to improve tobacco industry profits;

    ‘Plain packs’ – Another battle won by big anti-smoker industry – but is it really?

    Tobacco companies have consistently outperformed Every other sector on the stock market for around 20 years. I.e. They are doing just fine, particularly since the US master settlement agreement effectively gave the established companies a monopoly in production – for a very reasonable cost of $250 billion paid by smokers themselves. The tobacco companies have been able to increase their profits in what appears to be a declining market by increasing their prices as governments increased their tax grab.

    ‘Plain packs’ in macho, military style livery is yet another massive plus for those few trading tobacco companies. They get a worldwide corporate identity, for free, that reinforces their monopoly position and ensures no new company would have a hope in hell of penetrating that monopoly – more profit ensured. (Advertising and all this expensive maintenance of corporate identity is NOT about increasing the amount of smokers, it is about increasing MARKET SHARE against other companies). Anti-smoker nutters are being played like a violin, but they haven’t got a clue what is happening.

    Tobacco companies were demonised, allegedly as liars and cheats, years ago when they pointed out that no research has ever proven tobacco smoke to be harmful. Given that so-called smoke related illness continues to increase despite the reduction in smokers over decades, and other inconvenient facts, this claim could actually be true.

    The only evidence that smoking is harmful, is to be found only in mid C20th statistical research – NO OTHER research corroborates those statistics. The really frightening fact is that the majority of so-called ‘smoke related’ illness is suffered by those who have quit smoking. (Eg. Roughly 20% of lung cancers are in active smokers; 20% in never smokers; but a whopping 60% in quitters).Tobacco companies will be aware of these figures and may be exploiting the anti-smoker agenda -filling their boots while they can, knowing that the truth will eventually come to the fore. OTOH, the anti-smoker industry tells smokers that 80% of lung cancers are caused by smoking (or increasingly ‘linked’ to smoking without informing of this crucial ratio) and that quitting will improve their health.

    Who is winning this battle and who should be scrutinised here?

    • junican Says:

      ‘Plain packs’ in macho, military style livery…”
      I like that. It is a badge of honour not to be terrified.People terrified by pictures are sissies.
      I’m not sure about your claim that “The only evidence that smoking is harmful, is to be found only in mid C20th statistical research”. I am simply not sure. Certainly Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ was biblical, but there were others on the same theme around the same time with similar results. On the other hand, Fisher said that you can expect the same results if the methods used are the same. In effect, Fisher was saying that, if you ignore the vast numbers of confounders, then you will get the same result.
      The idea that smoking for 30 years was a feature of Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ – the longer that you smoke and the more that you smoke, the more likely that you will develop LC. Erm… There is no proof of that theory (and it is only a theory). It may well be that smoking for 20 years has no dangerous effect, whereas.perhaps, smoking has an effect later in life.
      But even more important, perhaps, was that Doll did not take into account the deprivations inflicted upon doctors during WW1 and WW2. How many doctors volunteered or were conscripted into the military during the course of those two wars? What nasty substance did they inhale during their military service? Some ‘nasty substances’ damage the lungs in a way that cannot be repaired, even though the effect is long-term.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: