Report: tobacco control "intimidated" by "pro-smoking" campaigners
Friday, June 1, 2012 at 17:30 Spoiler alert.
This afternoon I was contacted by a journalist who is writing a report for a national newspaper. The article will claim that pro-smoking activists are using inflammatory language to intimidate and even threaten tobacco control campaigners.
In particular I was asked to comment on a post published last year by blogger Frank Davis. Entitled Letter to Linda it was an open letter to Linda Bauld, professor of socio-management at Stirling University’s Institute for Social Marketing.
I linked to it here and described it as "stunning". I hope this doesn't come back to haunt me! It would be ironic if it did because Frank and I differ enormously on what we consider to be appropriate language in the context of smoking. (See Frank's post Antismoking Nazis.)
On reflection a better word might have been "powerful" because it is hard-hitting yet articulate, which is a powerful combination. It's certainly uncompromising and I was asked whether I thought some of the language is acceptable.
I was also asked what I think about pro-smokers calling anti-smokers "Nazis". Most of you know what I think because I have written about this before but I wanted to make sure there was no opportunity for confusion. So I sent an email that included the following quotes:
We would never condone threats of any kind, nor do we encourage inflammatory language.
The blog in question does not represent our views but it is representative of a small and increasingly vocal minority who are angry at the excessive nature of the smoking ban and the never-ending measures designed to denormalise both smokers and their habit.
Since the smoking ban many smokers feel excluded from the legislative process and disfranchised from the political system because none of the main parties appear to be listening to them.
We don't condone it but it is hardly surprising if their frustration occasionally bubbles over and is expressed in colourful or sometimes inappropriate language.
Regarding those 'Nazis' references, I repeated what I have previously written on this blog:
I certainly don't condone personal abuse or loose jibes about Nazis in relation to tobacco control ... As I have said many times, repeated references to a totalitarian regime that slaughtered six million Jews is inappropriate and embarrassing in relation to tobacco control. In terms of building support for our cause, it is entirely counter-productive.
I then changed tack and made the point that:
It is laughable that the tobacco control industry is trying to present itself as a victim of "intimidation" by the tobacco lobby or, indeed, a handful of online activists.
It is smokers and anyone who works for the tobacco lobby who should feel intimidated, and with good reason. Smokers are being denied jobs because of their habit. Communities and people's social lives have been damaged by the loss of thousands of pubs and clubs since the ban was introduced.
Smokers are told that "passive smoking kills" when there is very little evidence that it does. They are targeted with slogans such as "If you smoke you stink".
The bully state has replaced the nanny state. Coercion has taken over from education."
I also referred them to the post I wrote on Monday: Bullying, intimidation and censorship - the dark arts of Tobacco Control.
Finally, I added:
I am very keen that our position in relation to this issue is quite clear and will not be misrepresented in your report. Likewise I hope you can find space for the counter argument that accusations of "intimidation" are far more relevant to the treatment of smokers by tobacco control than they are to either smokers or the tobacco lobby.
Let's wait and see what the report actually says but my concern is that it may cast us in the worst possible light. This is one of the reasons why I repeatedly urge people on this blog and and elsewhere to moderate their language and avoid targeting individuals in a personal or vindictive way.
Call me old-fashioned but if we want to win people over we have to win the battle of ideas not the shouting match that accompanies it.
Update: The Guardian - the paper that contacted me - has the story here: Pro-smoking activists threaten and harass health campaigners - "security stepped up for tobacco control group as abuse grows amid moves to make cigarette packets plain".
Update: Dick Puddlecote, who is mentioned in the Guardian report, responds here.
Update: See also Frank Davis, Pat Nurse and Belinda.
Reader Comments (27)
When I started my blog, I knew going in that it wouldn't sit well with a lot of people on "our side" as it were. I accept that, and I accept that some may find the presentation unhelpful. It is an on-line persona, however, deliberately chosen to be as it is. I don't agree that it's counter-productive if it brings any attention to the causes we fight for, and while I don't expect anyone to agree with me and my viewpoints, I won't apologise for it. I know this means many people will not link to my blog posts. I am OK with this. I support everyone's right to decide for themselves what they want to do. You will never see me asking anyone to do something they don't want to do.
And no disrespect here, but we have not won any battles. We are grossly outnumbered (you only need to see the countless number of mindless people tweeting the packet racket crap in comparison to the hands off our packs campaign as evidence), and their vitriol, their hatred of us by far exceeds anything we have ever written on our blogs. I have been personally attacked on the street and have had people wished I would die quickly. I have never done this to any of the tobacco control crowd.
Indeed, we have never condoned killing anyone, or harming anyone, or even libelling them. And yet you do need to look far to see comments and blogs suggesting to kill off all filthy smokers, that we do not deserve health care, etc., etc.
We fight for freedom. We may use different tactics and different vernacular, but we fight the same for the same causes.
So, who's worse? Those of us who use bad language, or them who try to destroy our lives?
Simon,
Maybe you can direct them to:
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/cataloguing-psychosis.html
It’s just a sampling of the sorts of bile-laden, antismoking drivel that appears routinely on comments boards of stories pertaining to smoking.
It should not be surprising how we’ve arrived at this point - three decades of State-sponsored fear and hate-mongering by the antismoking fanatics.
Playing the victim and making up non-existent incidents of threats or harassment is standard practise with bullies particularly when they are losing the argument. Any real incidents should be reported to the appropriate authority not the nearest journalist.
Anyone in the public eye is going to cross an occasional loon, it goes with the territory. Tobacco control spokespeople made a free choice to go there and rather than deal with what is a fact of life they mendaciously turn it into a political point with as much validilty as most of their statistics.
Ignore them.
Simon I tend to agree with you on the use of intemperate language and it may make us seem a little eccentric. However what do you call:
1. The banning the freedom of assembly of consenting adults, to consume a legal substance on private property.
2. In Friedrich Von Hayek's The Road To Serfdom written in 1944 the Nobel Prize winning author outlines the misuse and perversion of science for political ends in communist and fascist states.
3. Professor Bauld obviously seems to think she is above the law when it comes to Freedom of Information Acts in releasing details of her work. May I remind you Prof Bauld was the co-author of a paper which said that the smoking ban has no impact on pub closures.
4. Tobacco control does not want to debate in public their opinions and papers. Professor Simon Chapman has blocked me on Twitter and ASH on their Facebook.
5. My one meeting with Deborah Arnott was a 5 minute bullying tirade on the basis that 'I am not an expert.'
It does seem to be getting to them they are being challenged on their trumped up evidence and are now crying 'foul'. This seems another underhand way to discredit anyone who has the temerity to disagree with them.
History will be quite unkind to tobacco control and their illiberal and intrusive tactics. We will wonder how ever did they get away with their undemocratic and authoritarian policies.
debate
taxes
This is just another one of the dirty tricks they play on a media that should listen to both sides and maybe even try investigating the issue properly rather than taking the easy route supplied by Big Tobacco Control Industry spin doctors.
Smokers began using the term "Nazi" in the way that we once called clipboard and peak cap officials "Little Hitlers" not too long ago.
As people in this movement have tried to analyse and comprehend what is being done to them with deliberate stigmatisation and denormalisation they have looked at antis of the past and what they were against whether that be women's rights, ethnic groups, or races, and have seen similarities in their tactics if they have never once said they believe the day will come when smokers are forced into the back of trucks.
The exaggeration is used to open eyes and it is not surprising there has been concern given that the template used against smokers now was copied from Hitler's war on smokers.
The Tobacco Control Industry has been warned that it's policies are socially divisive, vindictive, and work against social cohesion and they need to step back and think about where this is going but they refuse to listen. None of this bitter war would be in existence if smokers were not frozen out of decisions that would affect their lives with the FCTC.
How can anyone blame them for being angry or frankly not expect them to be.
Here is the article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/01/pro-smoking-activists-health-campaigners?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038
Sorry Simon, but I agree with Jay and the other posters. Mr Nice Guy has got us nowhere. Frank Davis is much milder than those who would crush us underfoot. You can carry on being ever so rational and ever so civil, but they will just laugh at your weakness and turn the screw tighter.
No more Mr Nice Guy, no more bending over to take it up the rear. The gloves need to come off now. The bottom line is that they ARE lying, conniving nazis, and I make no apologies for using that word, because I can't think of any other word that is more descriptive of their methods.
It's time for the tide to turn, and bowing and scraping is not going to achieve that.
"the article will claim..."
so this will be hardly a considered piece for which the 'journalist' wished to have your opinion as part of a balanced evaluation.
You hope that Frank Davis's 'Letter to Linda' doesn't come back 'to haunt you'. Why not? There was nothing in that post that could be considered inflammatory. Why use the weasel word, 'powerful' rather than 'stunning'? It was STUNNING because it so powerfully conveyed the evil that is being done by the Tobacco Control Industry and the intensity of resentment of those of us who know that we have become persona non grata in all spheres as a result of black propaganda. You are a non-smoker, Simon. You can sympathise but you can't begin to empathise with smokers - who fear losing their jobs (or not being hired), losing their homes (as tenants in breach of tenancy agreememts or wishing to rent property), who are denied by virtue of being smokers the chance of fostering or adopting and the possibiltiy of denial of medical treatment. In the real world, things have come to such a pass in this country that it would take but one complaint from a customer about the 'stink of smoke' that an employer woud try to fire the offending employee; there was an elderly lady who fell to her death because she was so terrified of losing her home if the landlord suspected her of breaching her tenancy agreemrent; two years ago I found myself having a robust discussiohn with the anaethetist thirty minutes before I was due to have surgery because she wished it not to go ahead because I smoked.
I understand, from a PR stance, your abhorrence of the use of the term 'Nazi'. I don't believe that any smoker, in using the term, intends to equate the Final Solution with that of the activities of the Tobacco Control Industry. I think that we must remember, however, that the Nazis didn't begin by going to the endgame. They started by smearing, 'denormalising' those whom they considered to be undesirable and, once they'd convinced the majority, ie those who didn't fall into the undesirable categories (and they encompassed more than Jews) they were able to take ever more extreme actions. At what point do we consider that Tobacco Control crosses the line? With posters that say 'If You Smoke, You Stink'? or when people fear for their homes and their livelihoods?
Jollies on boats ain't going to cut it anymore.
The only thing intimidating coming out of the twisted unrealistic and liberty hating world of anti-smoking right now is the disgusting and hate-legitimizing anti-smoker propaganda plastered all over the television, buses, roadside billboards and subway stations just about every direction you turn. That - is intimidation. Not someone stating the obvious truth on some blogsites somewhere. And the fact most of it is being financed by taxpayer money turned back against the taxpayers to enforce dictates and some by pharmaceuticals and their cohorts in the anti-smoking industry as filthy lucre is contemptible. They own the MSM and all government agencies, including the unelected and corrupt UN - then fake crying as yet another publicity propaganda stunt - is all this is. I don't need to use the Nazi word, regardless of Hitler's obsessive fascination with tobacco control and smoking bans because all this other corruption of theirs speaks volumes without bringing the Nazi association into it. But if they don't like the association, then they might try disassociating themselves by dropping the policies which got them there in the first place - their own self-created problem, they should cry over that, not blame others for logically responding to all the hateful intimidation they have stirred up.
Simon
Remember this article ...
http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2011/7/23/snipers-could-soon-snuff-out-smoking.html
No more need be said, I agree entirely with the above posters ... be it I have an advantage when confronting Tobacco Control, like you I am a non-smoker and they hate me for it.
Tobacco Control zealots deliberately and viciously and with malice afore-thought persuaded the Government to pass laws, based upon crap science, which forced my friend, the local publican, to throw ME outside, simply because I wanted to enjoy a cigarette with my pint. Why should I be civil to these cold, inhuman people? They don't see ME as a person - they see ME as just a statistic - a disgusting, filthy, stinking smoker, and they will not be happy until they have degraded and shamed me into compliance. Has not one of the arch-zealots, Simon Chapman recently called for licencing of smokers? Would the licence have to be worn as an armband on the chance that a child might see me smoking? Are not the arch-zealots in the USA calling for smokers to be persecuted if they smoke in their own homes? Did not James Rapace give evidence in a trial with the intention of having someone forbidden to smoke in his own garden? As one of the zealots said (in a paraphrase of another situation), "We only have to be luck once - you have to be lucky every time".
[Simon, edit the above as you wish if you think that any of it is 'inappropriate']
The Sniper the Flappers post mentioned in the article was in response to the failure of the PCC to take seriously the complaint about the Luton Herald calling for smokers to be shot in the street. Link here from the Freedom Society take on that disgusting article that the Guardian makes no mention of.
http://www.thefreesociety.org/Issues/Free-Speech/sniping-at-smokers
Absolute stitch-up.
Quotes taken out of context.
No attempt to look at the other side of the argument (see Dick Puddlecote's "Psychotic anti smoker" catalogue of anti-smoker bile and hatred).
No attempt to determine if the criticisms of Tobacco Control have any merit.
No consideration that, quote, "fight[ing] control measures" is what lovers of freedom do (er, who are the bad guys here - people who hunger for control or people who hunger for freedom?).
And finally, thatconclusive, typical anti-gambit - no way to comment on the article or refute their claims.
This "piece" may as well have been written by a member of ASH (and probably was).
Desperate stuff indeed - like the bleatings of a dying totalitarian regime. Interesting that they don't fall back on their usual smear of blaming the tobacco industry. It seems they DO actually know that the dozens of emails and threats and abuse that they get (which is in itself interesting and something I was unaware of before) is actually members of the public; citizens so disenfranchised, politically impotent and angered, that they feel they have to take this sort of direct action. And still they carry on! And still they have the gall to claim THEY are being, victimised and intimidated! The mind boggles.
Still, it will be interesting to hear from Dick and Frank what happens to their traffic after this publicity. In my experience most people agree with the views expressed by Dick Puddlecote, and I know many non-smokers who view ASH in a VERY negative light.
This blatant and clumsy propaganda piece may well blow up in their faces.
Is the co-author of this piece the same James Meikle who was once "researcher for the World Cancer Research Fund"?
http://www.spirehealthcare.com/patient-information/health-news/cancer/800368284-smoking-warnings-appear-to-have-cut-cancer-diagnosis-rate/
The same World Cancer Research Fund that has something of a history for "lifestyle management" and scaremongering.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/consumers-ignore-cancer-risks-of-eating-red-meat-398663.html
Hardly an unbiased piece....
Three problems here:
1. "a small and increasingly vocal minority'...Untrue. Smokers who agree with the remarks from pro-smoking bloggers are not a small minority and are becoming an increasingly vocal majority.
2. ' Smokers are being denied jobs because of their habit' Smoking is not a 'habit'. It is pleasurable pastime.
3. Anti-smoking hate groups are Nazis.
Simon
I am also worried by references to extremist political movements in the sense that I think it is wrong to call people names but I maintain that it is perfectly reasonable to reference such movements in historically accurate context so it concerns me greatly that our amoral but politically correct society effectively censors all reference to a period in human history that we should be learning so many lessons from.
For example, it may be counterproductive and confrontational to claim that Deborah Arnott is a Stalinist but it is perfectly reasonable to equate ASH's policy of avoiding debate by discrediting opponents using whatever means with that used successfully by the Soviets. The parallels are glaringly obvious so such references are entirely appropriate.
Similarly, it is not reasonable to call Robert West a Nazi but it is appropriate to point out that the Nazi's deliberately used children as a propaganda tool to manipulate adult behaviour, again with great success.
I do not believe that tobacco control advocates are Nazis but it is fair to point out that their published work is less than objective and bears some of the hallmarks of that produced in less enlightened times by less than liberal regimes that believed the ends justified the means.
I do not hold with personal intimidation but faced with the blatant insult to science, tolerance and rationality that is tobacco control, I struggle not to sympathize with those who feel that honest debate is winning no prizes and that feckless politicians through their uncritical support of an increasingly irrational and illiberal public health industry are leaving them effectively disenfranchised.
I note that Deborah Arnott of ASH could not resist the temptation The Guardian article presented to point out that “She believes tobacco industry fears over plain packaging of cigarettes are linked to the apparent upsurge in vitriol and threats.” How is one supposed to respond to such sad, opportunistic nonsense without becoming a little bit personal? I am becoming concerned that she actually believes what she is saying and that should make her an object of pity, not hatred.
I do not smoke, nor am I paid by anyone to write the odd blog piece that references the subject but this has not stopped ASH effectively accusing me amongst others of being in the pay of “big tobacco” which isn’t true but is a tactic that comrade Stalin would have approved of.
The article itself is a sample of how their propaganda works
Cherry picked opinions ,no mention of the other side, and even the link to your quote doesn't work Simon
Is there a link between Nazis & antismoking?
Historically speaking yes.Even Proctor has written a book about it and it is well documented,especially when it comes to passive smoking
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf
Are pro smokers ACTUALLY linking today's antismokers with Nazi ideology?
Ofcourse not.The paternalistic approach being used by the antismokers is the problem
The fact that by trying to marginalise smoking you thereby marginalise smoker and everything that he represents within the society
The fact that smokers today are not entitled to a public opinion when it comes to their own lives...
What I don't understand, Simon, is why they went to you. Why didn't they come to me? Is it because I is a smoker?
People react to state sponsored bullying in different ways depending on their character.
I must admit though when faced with bullying and veiled threats we all know about the video shown in the Guardian of a smoker being beaten to death.
Which sadly are condoned very often by state bodies such as the DOH and their sponsored smoke free this or that quangos.
Who frequently voice opinions that are little more than bigoted attacks against a large sector of the populus.
It has been stated before that if this where another minority under the present law they could be charged with hate crime.
Is it not human nature to defend oneself against such attacks?
I see that the University of Bath keep a database on some of us.
http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php?title=Pro-Tobacco_Bloggers
If you don't like the use of the 'N' word use sociopath instead.
Here are some traits.
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Sorce http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
I must be doing something wrong because I am not on the Tobacco Control Industry's hit list although my MP is because he, errr, voted against the tobacco display ban which is the democratic right of any MP.
When I searched for my name,. Bill Gibson, Leg iron, and Belinda Cunnison, it suggested I could create a new entry and submit information for each.
Why not play their game and add your own entry and some balance. As I see it there are no opportunities to put straight some of their accusations via a comment or info form - such as "David Atherton denies SHS causes lung cancer because it's not true and no amount of junk science and paid for propaganda can make it true."
However, I suppose the site is heavily moderated so truth would probably be edited out if we were to insert it.
I will on the Stephen Nolan show at 10.30 pm tonight on the Guardian article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_five_live
David - don't forget to mention the call to shoot smokers in the street that the Guardian ignored and these cases of real harm and deaths caused by anti-smoker propaganda.
http://patnurseblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/public-health-campaigns-kill-and-harm.html
You can email Tobacco Tactics. I have done so because Mummybest was feeling lonely as the only listed 'troll'. This the email that I have sent:
Please add The Bolton Smokers Club to your list. It does not really matter which section you put it in. You can also add 'Junican' as an individual. If you wish to, you can consult the British Medical Journal which will confirm my evil intentions to prove that Tobacco Control is a destructive force in our body politic and uses blatantly false statistics to mislead the People and MPs (see The Bolton Smokers Club - post of 1st June 2012). If you do not add The Bolton Smokers Club and Junican to your lists I shall complain like mad. Yours, Junican.
May I suggest that others do likewise?
The email address is:
tobaccotactics@bath.ac.uk
My appearance on the Stephen Nolan show. Starts 39.00.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jgb4w/Stephen_Nolan_02_06_2012/
Having read the Tobacco Tactics site I get the feeling that all this 'squit' is because of the recent exposure of the Tobacco Control Industry as such-ie an Industry and a public funded gravy train for its leading advocates and as a result of the 'FOI' requests etc...
The cASHites are scared stiff that they will be shown up for that which they are-namely all about the money. That their tactic of proclaiming all and any opposition to be 'tobacco industry stooges' will be used against them.
Further the fact that this week saw a major step towards the 'no safe level of alcohol' goal means that the cASHites are worried that the population might suddenly cotton on to the fact that tobacco isn't 'a unique product' and that Arnott & Co will not rest until full prohibtion of anything remotely 'sinful' has been achieved.