I don't want to stigmatise smokers says MP who wants to ban smoking in cars with children
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 at 9:25 Lively discussion on Five Live last night but shorter than planned because of other breaking news stories.
It followed the publication of a report by a Department of Health adviser. Dr Hilary Graham found that Anti-smoking campaigns turn those who light up 'into lepers' (Daily Mail).
We've been saying this for years ("smokers treated like second class citizens" etc etc) but it's good to have it confirmed in an 'official' document.
Anyway, Five Live put me up against Alex Cunningham, the MP for Stockton North who has been trying to introduce a bill to ban smoking in cars with children. Cunningham sounded decent enough. His view is that there is no benefit in stigmatising smokers. He said he wants to take people with him but imposing an unnecessary law on smokers (the vast majority of whom don't light up in a car with children present) is not the action of a man who believes in consensus.
I was a bit bolshier than I intended to be but it was late (almost midnight) and I was tired. The gist of my argument was that intolerance towards smokers is increasing and I quoted some of the comments in response to the story about Dr Graham's report: "Smokers disgust me", "Smokers are disgusting and dirty outcasts", "Poor, sad nicotine addicts" etc etc.
I also mentioned that someone has posted on the Forest website the comment "I hope you die of cancer". This, I said, was the same comment that was directed at us by a Bristol councillor when we sent a mailshot to 18,000 councillors a few years ago.
My main point however was that while these comments do not (in my view) represent the majority of non-smokers, the intolerance they represent is being driven by the tobacco control industry and fuelled by government and politicians like Alex Cunningham.
I mentioned, as an example of scaremongering, the government's claim that 11,000 non-smokers were dying every year as a result of passive smoking. I also mentioned the campaign, funded with public money, that featured the slogan 'If you smoke you stink'. If that's not designed to whip up intolerance I don't know what is.
Pat Nurse came on after Cunningham and I had finished our spat and did a great job – the sane, moderate voice of the consumer!
You can listen here. It begins at 1:19:10.
Simon Clark
According to Dr Graham's report:
The history of public health is scarred by policies which, pursued in the name of health protection and promotion, have served to intensify public vilification and state-sanctioned discrimination against already disadvantaged groups.
However:
She praised the success of anti-smoking policies which mean around one in five Britons is now a smoker, against four out of five in the 1950s.
That's the problem. Policies that stigmatise the consumer are considered a success if they reduce consumption rates.
Reader Comments (15)
Yep, that was pretty good. Pat was excellent. You both attacked and, again, it came off. More of it and stop apologising for being 'tired'. In the last 2 interviews I've heard you 'tired', it's worked. Slowly but surely, these idiots are getting the message that we are beginning to lose our rag with them.
"What about the 16%?" said Cunningham. That was a golden opportunity to bring up SHS. i.e. "What about it?"
"However:
She praised the success of anti-smoking policies which mean around one in five Britons is now a smoker, against four out of five in the 1950s.
That's the problem. Policies that stigmatise the consumer are considered a success if they reduce consumption rates."
Almost all the fall in smoking rates happened at a time before Government began splashing out the huge amounts of cash to our present day righteous. The current massive funding and stigmatising policies have had little beneficial effect on smoking rates but many have lined their pockets.
"[...]the government's claim that 11,000 non-smokers were dying every year as a result of passive smoking."
Is that UK non-smokers? Because just a few short years ago, the government claimed that banning smoking in private pubs and clubs would save 600 people per year. I wondered about that figure then, as it seemed to me that someone had pulled it out of their arse and presented it as fact. How wonderfully precise, I had thought.
But now SHS kills 11,000? Seriously? Has anyone ever known someone who died of SHS exposure? Has there been one, just one, "confirmed" case not based on supposition and conjecture?
Does the government keep data on deaths by SHS? Time for a FOI records check, me thinks. Last time someone tried, I seem to recall that the government said it did not keep such data. So, let me guess: It's ASH's or some other control group's made up figures?
Apologies, Simon. The vast majority of those questions are rhetorical. I do not expect any answers.
I quite agree Xopher. I know quite a few people who had given up smoking, but because of the ban and the fact that they did not agree with it, nor did they want to be or see others being discriminated agains in this way, they started smoking again!
Then there are the never before smokers who are now smoking, because of the ban! Many have told me that the reason is they were fed up with sitting in the pub, on their own, looking after smokers' drinks and belongings whilst the smokers were outside having a good old chin wag, a laugh and a joke. The non smoker felt left out and so joined them and then decided to try a cigarette - they now smoke and understand the benefits and the reasons why smokers smoke!
Hallelujah for that, but we now have people smoking again who had given up and completely new smokers joining the ranks, when prior to the ban smoking rates where declining steadily of their own volition! Brilliant! Job well done by the antis, it has just cost the country a darn sight more than any supposed costs that smokers have levied on the NHS! Still, the likes of ASH don't mind, they are getting paid handsomely for conning naive governments!
Yes, well done. And, as Frank says, the SHS nonsense must be exposed. That is why smokers have been forced onto the street and subjected to more hate. I think it's now clear (at least to many of us) that this was more of a deliberate strategy to denormalise, rather than protect staff. Bust that myth and TC would be up the proverbial paddleless.
I would always bring up this point in conversation about so called SHS - and it's this.
"So, 11,000 people are killed each by SHS...then in that case do you have any post-mortem evidence that anyone, anywhere in the world has been killed by SHS?"
But what irritates me, is that this question has never been asked once...not once. This ban has been predicated on so called 'passive smoking'...without this tool the smoking ban would not exist.
Post-Mortem evidence is physical, irrifutable evidence that cannot be manipulated under any circumstances. This is why the antis grasp at the straws of epidemiology (statistical conjecture), because quite simply nobody in the world has post-mortem evidence - because if they did then they would be the first people in the world to do so...and you can bet your boots...if the antis had it they would shove it down our throats every day of the week and twice on Sunday's - and it would be game over.
But they don't have it though do they? - because nobody does!
I don't anyone's cause of death is recorded as 'smoking'. Indeed, they cannot claim that any specific death has been caused by smoking because there are no diseases that are caused only by smoking, including lung cancer. It's not as though smoking is a disease (although many antis would beg to differ). And, for obvious reasons, they rarely blame nicotine. It's all down to epidemiology, akin to looking for needles in a haystack. Which, of course, they'll never find and name because there aren't any.
They used to tell smokers to cut back (take fewer puffs etc). Reasonable advice, particularly re heavy smokers. In other words, light smoking is relatively safe. But this undermines the passive smoking agenda. Hence the frankly ludicrous claim that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. The tragedy is that most of the idiots out there seem to believe them....
Well done, Simon. I thik that it is necessary to be agressive with these people. When they are on radio of TV, they sound oh so sweet, kind, 'just want to be helpful', reasonable, but we know that those qualities are a charade. The reality is that they are as hard as nails.
I noticed that Cunningham MP could not wait to get the customary dig at Tobacco Companies in. And then, of course, the emotional heart-string tugging of 'the children'.
Pat was excellent as always.
You may know that I am going through the McTear case with fine toothcomb. There are lots of superb quotes in there. Did you know that ASH's own 'expert witness' claimed that 98% of squamous lung cancers are found in smokers? What does that say about lung cancers from SHS in non-smokers? He said that lung cancer was very rare in non-smokers. The other 2%? Could be any reason - diesel fumes, genetics, whatever.
Well done Simon, and another confident radio spot from Pat. Shame the time was so cramped as it would have been good to answer Livesey's question of who is promoting the 'smokers as malodorous' and selfish etc. It was tobacco control heavyweight Simon Chapman who detailed these methods, and not to condemn them, either.
Patsy and Simon,
I hope you guys are well.
Gabi and I have just listened to your broadcast on Radio 5 and you were both terrific, we were cheering you from the rafters.
Great point about the black market Patsy and the potential harm to children.
Well done again.
Regards
Dave and Gabi
Just listened, too. Simon, please do more interviews when you're 'tired': Debs A can get away with being sweet and oh-so-reasonable but when we do restraint we just sound as if we're on the back foot. Your assertive approach worked, with Cunningham's appeal to 'the children' sounding hackneyed. If I could make one criticism, it would be that you give the impression that you believe that SHS is dangerous and, for that reason, 'good' smoking parents would not smoke in a car with children thus leaving the door open for the likes of Cunningham to suggest that legislation is required to bring the remaining 'bad' smoking parents into line. We know that you take the view that it is a matter of consideration for, rather than danger to, children, but, unless you spell out your case, these b***ards will twist everything you say (or don't say)
Pat was her usual robust self - she makes no apology whatsoever for being a smoker and speaking out against TC, and that takes guts.
Yes, well done Simon and Pat.
db, a good point. Although smoking is a risk, it cannot be truthfully entered on a death certificate. As James P Siepmann MD says in http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm, "The process of developing cancer is complex and multifactorial. It involves genetics, the immune system, cellular irritation, DNA alteration, dose and duration of exposure, and much more. Some of the known risk factors include genetics4,5,6, asbestos exposure7, sex8, HIV status9, vitamin deficiency10, diet11,12,13, pollution14 , shipbuilding15 and even just plain old being lazy.16 When some of these factors are combined they can have a synergistic effect17, but none of these risk factors are directly and independently responsible for "causing" lung cancer!"
The point about smoking in cars is a classic case. Of course, someone who smokes in a car is a bloody moron, and that's why very few parents do so, but the state doesn't have to get involved in the typical overbearing nanny-state way they do. And what about car seats? My parents once told me that when they road around with me in the 60's, my mum either held me in the back or if she got tired put me in a large box with covers and a pillow at her feet. I seem to have turned out no worse for wear from all that.
The Holy Zealots must be fought every step of the way. For a long time, they had 'the lead time' - few people knew what their agenda was. Only now has it become apparent that many MPs have lost sight of FREEDOM. Instead of FREEDOM, they see FREEDOM FROM.
Intensify the attack on the hard-as-nails prohibitionists. Do not believe their 'we are not stigmatising smokers' statements - they started that years ago with the 'smokers stink' campaign and many others.
No quarter. When Deb says, "Oh...We are not attacking smokers when we advocate plain packaging, hiding fags behind closed doors, ending fag machines, closing pubs and bingo halls, and everything else that proprietors might wish to do. No...not at all....We only want.......?" There is only one 'want', which is prohibition.
Fight for freedom.
There is no irrefutable evidence to suggest that children (or adult non smokers) are in any danger from SHS. Nor anywhere else for that matter. It really boils down to one simple thing - one either accepts that SHS is harmful or that it isn't. There are no half measures, it's a case 'all or nothing'. The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces is merely the precursor of much worse to come. That is why all efforts should focus on busting the myth.