I wish that I had the time and knowledge to create such a list. I would not include people who genuinely believe that smoking causes LC or any other disease, provided that they confined themselves to scientific facts and advice. But when they stray into the use of force, then they go on the list. By the word ‘force’, I mean stigmatisation, denial of medical treatment, denial of jobs, deliberate taxation, aggressive actions, etc.
It is in the context of ‘aggressive actions’ that we must place Blair et al’s smoking ban. A simple compromise was always possible – a separate, ventilated smoking room. And such a room would not require a hurricane-force fan to remove the smoke. An ordinary extractor fan would do the job, provided that it was situated in the right place. The right place is as near the ceiling as possible and as far away from the room door(s) as possible. Blair et al chose the most aggressive action, which has caused no end of trouble, especially since it created an atmosphere in academia that there was good money to be made from research activism.
A list of such people would be fun. I do not mean that the people on the list should be attacked in any way. But they could be tracked. EG, someone like Silly Sally Davis, and how she moved seamlessly from cocking up the Chief Medical Officer’s job to becoming provost of Oxford Uni. At every point, some group of unknowns must have selected her. There was a time when the Tory Party was like that. The leader ’emerged’, ie, was chosen by the elite in the Tory Party. What is the difference between that system and the appointments of Silly Sally?
It would take a lot of work to unmask the members of Elite Committees. Almost certainly, the same people would appear again and again. So there would be every reason to include on the list people who appear on committees of all sorts in all sorts of disciplines, and then walk away after the decision has been made.
In industry, that might be OK, but not in Government. In industry, outcomes can be measured reasonably precisely merely by counting sales and profits, but there are no such measures in Gov.
So who are the greatest villains?
Bolton Smokers Club 
06/03/2019 at 09:18
Anyone can have a really bad idea, it’s the ones who persuade government to act on it who are the villains.
“Yesterday the Action on Smoking and Health APPG announced new recommendation for the smoking age to be raised from 18 to 21. But Guido can reveal that a whopping 73% of the politicians in the APPG which thinks that 20 year olds are too immature to smoke also want the voting age to be lowered to 16.”
With full list of names.
https://order-order.com/2019/03/04/mps-called-smoking-age-rise-21-want-lower-voting-age-16/
Alex Cunningham MP
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
Baroness Masham of Ilton
Baroness Northover
Baroness O’Cathain
Baroness Tonge
Bob Blackman MP
Caroline Flint MP
Caroline Lucas MP
Earl of Listowel
Dr Phillipa Whitford MP
Ian Mearns MP
Jenny Chapman MP
Lord Faulkner
Lord Jones of Cheltenham
Lord Judd
Lord Rea
Lord Rennard
Lord Storey CBE
Nick Smith MP
Peter Bottomley MP
Rachael Maskell MP
Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP
Rt Hon Lord Young of Cookham CH
The Viscount Simon
Virendra Sharma MP
Andrew Murrison MP
Christine Jardine MP
07/03/2019 at 01:45
Of that list, only 14 are actually MPs. The rest are barons, baronesses or other Lords. Whom do those Lords and Ladies represent? It can only be themselves.
14 MPs is hardly representative of anything other than a small pressure group. Why should the Gov even listen to them at all?
06/03/2019 at 18:16
Just go into any smoking pub in Denmark, Austria, or Switzerland Junican and see what is achieved with modern ventilation equipment. We could easily have that in the UK. ASH etc are frightened that if these freedoms happened in the UK all pubs would have to offer smoking. We all know that then no smoking pubs would be out of business.
07/03/2019 at 01:55
Well, exactly, Tim. The smoking ban was not based upon reality. It was always based upon international politics.
06/03/2019 at 19:37
There are many tobacco control grifters and hate mongers but Stanton Glantz, PhD should be at the top of the list.
A pseudoscientist that fabricates and manipulated so-called research in the name of his personal profit and ideology of hate. Much of the current antismoking hysteria relies on his lies and deception.
07/03/2019 at 02:06
But he can only exist as a result of backing. Who is backing him? His ‘studies’ are laughable, but he gets a free ride where it matters – in the press and places such as the FDA.
It isn’t so much him who needs to be brought down. It is his backers.
07/03/2019 at 14:05
Good thought.
May I also addTornado Repace.
“The claim that “tornado-level ventilation” is required to make a building “safe” from secondhand smoke was first made by James Repace, a prominent and fanatical anti-smoking activist since the 1970s. In those days, Repace – who has a degree in physics – was working at the electronics division of Washington’s Naval Research Laboratory. By the end of the decade he had written his debut study into secondhand smoke, found a job at the Environmental Protection Agency (1) and soon became a well-known and well-paid anti-smoking spokesman and researcher. In 1998 he set up his own company – Repace Associates, Inc – and became a professional ‘secondhand smoke consultant’.”
https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2009/09/1111-james-repace-thinks-of-number-part_02.html
Passive smoking ‘killing workers’
2003
“More people died in 2002 from passive smoking at work in the UK than were killed by the Great London smog of 1952
James Repace”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2925633.stm
That’s why you can’t have ventilation in a pub, Junican, Tornado Repace insisted it wouldn’t work, our lot were very enamoured of him at the time.
“This study shows that previous research has seriously underestimated the number of people killed by second-hand smoke at work.”
The findings will be highlighted at a conference on the effects of workplace smoking this week organised by the anti-smoking charity ASH, the TUC, and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH).
The conference will call on the government to implement a legally binding Code of Practice for workplace smoking, proposed over two years ago by the Health and Safety Commission.
This would clarify how existing health and safety law applies to passive smoking, effectively banning smoking from the vast majority of workplaces. “
07/03/2019 at 23:05
Another charlatan who thought that the end justifies the means.