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?