Monday 10 February 2014

BBC: It's not about the children, it's about denormalisation

A ban on smoking in cars with under-18s, plain packaging of tobacco, and an enabling act to allow future health secretaries to regulate tobacco in any way they want. Not bad for a few grubby amendments patched onto an unrelated piece of legislation by unelected Labour peers at the eleventh hour.

Will the anti-smoking groups now disband? Can we stop giving them millions of pounds of public money? Of course not. The crusade marches on.

I have often said that the ban on smoking in cars had nothing to do with children or secondhand smoke. Like all anti-smoking legislation, it is really about harassing and bullying adult smokers. And now that the amendments have made it through parliament, the BBC can let its hair down and speak this truth openly.

Much of the debate about banning smoking in cars has been talked about in terms of protecting children.

That is understandable. Research published in 2009 showed that a single cigarette in a stationary car could produce levels of second-hand smoke 11 times greater than that found in a smoky bar.

Although it should be pointed out that the study also said if the car was moving and a window open it reduced the toxins to well below that level.

Indeed. It's not about secondhand smoke. It's a bluff. (And how obscene that figures based on smoking in a stationary car with all the windows up came to dominate the political discussion and were quoted in the House of Commons this evening.)

But it is also an inescapable fact that this issue is the latest in the fight to make smoking socially unacceptable.

No kidding.

From the smoking ban to the warnings on cigarettes, one of the underlying aims of all interventions is that they should push smoking away from what is considered normal behaviour.

It is, let's face it, the only aim. It is a top-down process of gradual, forceful stigmatisation. This is why those of us with liberal views find the tobacco control movement morally repugnant.

It is now up to ministers to decide whether they want to take this next step. At the moment, they are saying there are no immediate plans, but that could easily change.

There are no immediate plans. The plans get drawn up tomorrow morning.


Sure enough, plans are afoot. Plus, a new article from Nick Triggle: Is a complete ban on smoking next?


Anonymous said...

I'm tempted to adopt some kids who smoke so we can drive up and down the road past the magistrates courts flicking the V's at them.

JohnB said...

It’s these medically-aligned zealots (neo-eugenics) that need to be depicted as abnormal. They operate by a shallow physicalist framework that produces a perverse definition of health, they are megalomaniacal, they are neurotic, they are bigoted, they are Narcissistic, and they suffer a “god complex” – delusions of benevolence and omniscience. The mental mess is held together with pathological lying. These constant moralizers are frauds and they dominate government health bureaucracies. The last time these miscreants were let loose with State approval (early last century), they created global catastrophe. And they’re well on their way again.

Unknown said...

My congratulations on your24 votes. Tobacco industry money was well spent, eh?

Unknown said...

What tobacco money are you refering to Manuel, being at the forefront of the fight against smokers civil liberties for eight years, I have never seen a penny from the tobacco companies, if we look at our counterparts who are funded by the big pharmacutical companies and others such as Bill and Melisa Gates the UK government and others who fund this social engineering programme, they are awash with money. please Manuel do some research before making sweeping statements, as we on this side are doing this out of just conviction and not money, would be nice if someone gave us some money, to expose this sordid social engineering programme of their's though.

Christopher Snowdon said...

People like "Manuel" suffer from a delusion that is common to many fanatics and conspiracy theorists that anyone who disagrees with them is paid to do so. They are more to be pitied than loathed, although a bit of loathing is also appropriate.

Unknown said...

Above comment should have read "being at the forefront of the fight for smokers civil liberties for eight years"

Unknown said...

Agree Chris, but it is galling, when people of integrity, have spent many hundreds if not thousands of hours exposing, the inconsistencies, and downright lies of the tobacco control industry.

Beleaguered Consumer said...

Manuel is Militant over at Simon Clark's blog. It's a troll. Don't feed it.

Fredrik Eich said...

"A ban in homes is not feasible or right" - Deborah Arnot 2014.


Clive Bates, director of anti-smoking group ASH, said: "This is a scaremongering story by a tobacco industry front group.

"No-one is seriously talking about a complete ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants." - Clive Bates 1998.

I am sick to death of all this publicly funded sociopathy. I never thought I would live to see the day that gay couples could adopt children just so long as they are not gay smokers. I am not saying that gay people should not be able to adopt children , I just don't understand why one discrimination has to be replaced by another. Well actually I do, it's because of the tobacco control industry which makes these "confidence trick"s such a point of pride.

Unknown said...

But Chris, you slippery little fellow, your employers the IEA and the ASI do get tobacco money don't they? And JTI spent £2M on newspaper adverts alone trying to stop standard packs, and PMI bunged Crosby Text or and all that tar-stained cash that your "liberal" (sic) principles added up to ... 24 votes. Congratulations again!

Unknown said...

But Chris, you slippery little fellow, your employers the IEA and the ASI do get tobacco money don't they? And JTI spent £2M on newspaper adverts alone trying to stop standard packs, and PMI bunged Crosby Textor £6M, and all that tar-stained cash that your "liberal" (sic) principles attract added up to ... 24 votes. Congratulations again!

Ivan D said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ivan D said...

I find it hard not to despise those who resort to ad hominem attacks rather than judging people on the quality of their arguments. Manuel or Militant is a Marxist troll but his unpleasantness is mirrored by many in Westminster, especially those who occupy the benches reserved for HM's allegedly Most Loyal Opposition. I don't really do party politics but I now know for sure who I will not be voting for at any election in the foreseeable future. I have the good fortune to live in a marginal so a few like me might make a difference.

Perhaps someone should collect Manuel/Militant's spiteful comments and use them to highlight the consequences of funding political activism with donations stolen from people who thought that they were donating to cancer research.