Truth lies bleeding
Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 15:31 OK, so this is what we're up against.
On Thursday I took part in a 30-minute discussion about smoking on Mustard TV (Freeview Channel 7, Norfolk area only).
My fellow guests were a nurse and chair of a local NHS group, and an ex-smoker who now works for a stop smoking service. The debate was lively but respectful of other people's opinions.
Off air the atmosphere was friendly and there was none of the tension I sometimes experience with anti-tobacco lobbyists.
Nice as they were there was nevertheless a problem.
Tracy, the nurse, insisted there is evidence that exposure to tobacco smoke in the open air is dangerous to non-smokers.
Bill, the smoking cessation man, took a similar view. To make his point he explained that he invites groups to picture the following scene.
"Walking down a road you see a nice friendly old guy sitting at a bus shelter smoking a pipe; on the other side there's a man on a park bench injecting heroin."
He then asks, "Which side of the road are you going to walk?"
"They always choose the side of the smoker," he told us, but before you cheer his point was this.
Psychological issues aside, "passively the heroin user will not harm anybody". In contrast, smoking "harms everybody", even outside.
Now Tracy and Bill struck me as decent and likeable people. Unlike some anti-smoking campaigners I don't think they would deliberately lie, exaggerate or deceive people.
In other words they genuinely think that passive smoking, indoors or outside, poses a risk to the health of non-smokers.
Worse, Bill seems to think that even the briefest exposure to an old bloke smoking his pipe at a bus shelter is putting other people's health at risk.
The terrifying thing is, Bill and Tracy aren't ordinary members of the public. They are actively engaged in public health yet they believe what I can only describe as mumbo-jumbo.
And there are thousands of Bills and Tracys throughout the country.
Where are they getting their information from and why is no-one in the public health industry challenging it?
The former needs investigation but I've no doubt about the latter.
The reason no-one is challenging this and other myths about smoking is because the endgame (smoking cessation) is considered so important it justifies almost any means.
We see this again and again in public life. If it produces the desired outcome the truth can be twisted and tortured beyond recognition.
The EU referendum is a classic example, with both sides at fault. It's particularly disappointing though that a democratically elected government should resort to such ruthless and systematic propaganda.
Public health campaigns are the same. Myths, estimates and calculations are repeatedly presented as 'facts'.
If the referendum does nothing else it may open people's eyes to the reality of public debate in Britain today.
Meanwhile the truth lies bleeding. How rotten is that?
Reader Comments (8)
I'd suggest that Bill and Tracy are activists following directions given to them from above. The plan is to frame the limits to debate. They are trying to get people arguing about possible dangers from outdoor smoking in order to shut down any argument about the, almost equally ludicrous, claims of harm from so called passive smoking indoors. Or the even more ludicrous notion of 3rd hand smoke. The plan is to put those claims beyond dispute. This has been a key tool in the anti-smoking campaign for decades. Starting with lung cancer, then the 'black lung lie', followed by heart disease and then pretty much every ailment, real or imagined, under the sun being caused by 'active' smoking. Each was loudly paraded as settled before the next one was brought in to replace it in debate.
The famous saying that "a lie can travel halfway round the world before the truth gets its boots on" is the key. And their approach is to ensure that by the time "the truth has its boots on", another lie has already been unleashed and taken pride of place in the public's mind.
There is no doubt they believe the script. There is also no doubt that the second hand smoke risk is a scam based on ideology rather than science.
Tony's assessment is accurate and the manipulation of facts to serve the ideology of prohibition needs to be countered at every opportunity.
When you asked Bill to explain how outdoor SHS harms anyone, what on earth did he reply and what 'evidence' did Tracy refer to in support of her conviction?
“If the referendum does nothing else it may open people's eyes to the reality of public debate in Britain today.”
I would that that were true, Simon, and maybe in some cases it might actually happen. But you can bet your bottom dollar that even if the whole country became suddenly aware, in the light of the appalling standard of “debate” over the referendum, as to how utterly useless all of our politicians are at that most basic of their functions, i.e. politics, they’d still keep that much-cherished blind spot when it comes to transferring those appallingly low standards to the “debate” about smoking.
We’ve seen it happen already, in much more closely-related areas, where the “tobacco control” template has been used (with its use even, sometimes, being openly bragged about) against all sorts of other “vices” such as vaping, drinking, fast food, sugar and salt – but still the people newly-targeted by these new campaign groups refuse to make the connection. If I hear one more non-smoking drinker saying: “Ah, but the difference is that there’s no such thing as Passive Drinking,” or one more non-smoking overweight person saying: “Ah, but at least my burger habit isn't harming anyone else,” I think I’ll scream. However, I usually content myself with simply adding, rather darkly: "Yet."
Will it really only take the application of fabricated scientific “evidence” of Passive [insert vice] to manipulate public policy-making (for fabricated it surely will be, just as it was for Passive Smoking) for them to realise that, if these campaigners put their minds, and not insubstantial funds, to it, they can create a Passive hazard out of anything they don’t like? And, once Passive Drinking (or whatever) has become established in everyone else’s minds as a genuine social scourge about which “something must be done,” will they even then be able to realise that all that’s happened is that the Tobacco Template has simply been lifted, wholesale, lies and all, from the Tobacco Control handbook and re-hashed, with just the name of the vice in question changed? To be honest, I think it’s doubtful.
Most anti smoking campaigners are closed minded evangelists . The truth is the last thing they want . I wonder how they feel about exhaust fumes in the outdoors .
They speak like that because it is their job to do so and they are paid for it. It is the priorities of successive governments that allow it as they fund them.
The truth is simply SHS causes coughing/asthma attacks/eye stinging , this is simple truth about smoking and its about time lobbyists we acknowledged second hand smoke is at least very unpleasant to the vast majority of the public.
Simon if you had challenged Bill and Tracy they would have said what the health issues were, there is no myth involved in what the public think.
Inhaling smoke for non smokers may not kill them but it causes issues and its about time lobbyists stopped prattling on about it being life and death, and as there will be no death the issues over SHS are flawed.
The immediate public reaction to unwelcome smokers is because of the immediate effects of SHS, its about time lobbyists got of this silly bandwagon of claiming SHS issues are all lies.
The truth dosen't lie bleeding , the truth is everywhere and bloody obvious if you smoke near 70% of the public.
The truth is that SHS can be an irritant but not a killer. The truth is that smokers do not have to be bothered by those who don't like smoke and vice versa. The truth is other countries manage to provide facilities for both those who like smoke and those who hate it or fear it. The truth is both sides of this debate can be accommodated without one bothering the other.
That is the truth. The rest is lies and scaremongering.