tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post8447869398489178421..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Is that a slippery slope I see before me?Christopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-60797686550277277372011-03-13T19:08:21.860+00:002011-03-13T19:08:21.860+00:00Blaze, if you have a copy of the survey I'd li...Blaze, if you have a copy of the survey I'd like it for my files. Showing how the Antis rig things like this through the clever use of structure and language can be valuable to us.<br /><br />Keep trying to dig out a response/excuse from them as to the poll closing early as well.<br /><br />Contact me via "Contact The Author" at www.Antibrains.com<br /><br />Nisakiman, thank you! :) You can even see the ultimate "Second hand alcohol" argument they might use to get to that point in "Secondary Smoke, Alcohol, and Deaths" at: <br /><br /> http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7495/812/reply#bmj_el_105082?sid=4d13cb10-f0da-4c71-9d7b-6facf89545d8<br /><br /> When I wrote that about five years ago it was WAYYYY beyond the pale that the Antis would ever go there, but today it's practically just beyond the next door.<br /><br />- MJMMichael J. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181949578184965482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-73756992991789942902011-03-12T23:52:36.205+00:002011-03-12T23:52:36.205+00:00I always thought that once they go for the drinks ...I always thought that once they go for the drinks industry they jumped the shark.<br />I hardly know any, and I mean any adult that does not enjoy even a wee glass o wine.<br />Drinkers, even moderate one's, are not a minority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-31383036141011652102011-03-12T20:23:13.033+00:002011-03-12T20:23:13.033+00:00Thanks JJ for trying.
You are right. I had an ema...Thanks JJ for trying.<br /><br />You are right. I had an email from SFNW saying it was due to remain open to 21 March.<br /><br />I replied, asking if it was only being circulated to public sector 'partners' - as it appeared was the case - or whether it would go further.<br /><br />I did not get a reply and now it has been pulled early.<br /><br />I think I'll get on to the DoH saying that the 'consultation results' from the NW came only from 'partner organisations' and that the questions were loaded!Blazeawaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-59212432337279183262011-03-12T19:07:23.808+00:002011-03-12T19:07:23.808+00:00I would love to complete it...if it wasn't clo...I would love to complete it...if it wasn't closed.JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05239651363530826401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-19628455383722463252011-03-12T18:52:45.765+00:002011-03-12T18:52:45.765+00:00SmokeFreeNorthWest is circulating this 'survey...SmokeFreeNorthWest is circulating this 'survey'. I tried it and found that it was impossible to give an answer that couldn't be interpreted as a 'no'.<br />Sems prety bent to me.<br />Still, I wonder if people would be so kind as to complete it:<br /><br />www.mypointofview.co.uk/sfnw<br /><br />Purely in the nterest of helping them ;Blazeawaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-50874484462910641092011-03-12T14:34:45.497+00:002011-03-12T14:34:45.497+00:00The prohibitionists, puritans and those simply loo...The prohibitionists, puritans and those simply looking for a free ride at the taxpayers’ expense have re-invented themselves as “public health” so we need to take a look at the current concept of public health and question the totalitarian notion that the selective use of macro statistics is the most important measure of the health of the nation. It is this obsession with statistics, the ease with which they can be manipulated and the fact that they are valued more highly than people that is the basis for the slippery slope and the tyranny that public health has become. <br /><br />Given the truth about the “benefits” of health initiatives to the individual it would be interesting to see what choices people would make. Would I go for the 5 extra years of life in a care home suffering from dementia and thereby contribute to an abstract statistical “success” or would I choose the extra glass of delicious single malt of an evening and possibly risk dying at a younger age? A no brainer really but we are denied such choices by a political elite more interested in appeasing unelected lobbyists and meddlesome medics than representing the majority of the people.Chris Oakleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11565704648953031588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-69698726117595517792011-03-12T13:37:03.608+00:002011-03-12T13:37:03.608+00:00It is correct that the prohibitionists, puritans a...It is correct that the prohibitionists, puritans and those simply looking for a free ride at the taxpayers’ expense have re-invented themselves as “public health” so we need to take a look at the current concept of public health and question the totalitarian notion that the selective use of macro statistics is the most important measure of the health of the nation. It is this obsession with statistics, the ease with which they can be manipulated and the fact that they are valued more highly than individual freedom of choice that is the basis for the tyranny that public health has become. <br /><br />Given the truth about the “benefits” of health initiatives to the individual it would be interesting to see what choices people would make. Would I go for the 5 extra years of life in a care home suffering from dementia and thereby contribute to an abstract statistical “success” or would I choose the extra glass of delicious single malt of an evening and possibly risk dying at a younger age? A no brainer really but we are denied such choices by a political elite more interested in appeasing unelected lobbyists and meddlesome medics than representing the majority of the people. <br /><br />On a practical note, I believe that peaceful protest is still just about legal in the UK and the location of this waste of our money to support the work shy is now well publicised.Chris Oakleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11565704648953031588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-28750899480051953252011-03-12T09:13:02.936+00:002011-03-12T09:13:02.936+00:00"Would you like a nice Dom Perignon with your..."Would you like a nice Dom Perignon with your meal? Yes? Ahhh, fine. Enjoy it. Please remember to take it out back by the dumpsters before opening and chugging it though. Have a nice dinner." <br /><br />Brilliant! And so depressingly prescient.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-71203622669671690492011-03-12T02:38:50.496+00:002011-03-12T02:38:50.496+00:00The most hypocritical, in my opinion, are many of ...The most hypocritical, in my opinion, are many of the high priced cigar smokers. Take a look through Cigar Aficionado magazine some time to get a sense of true delusion. It's frightening to discover the level of contempt many cigar smokers have for cigarette smoking. While there's something to be said for the difference in risk between direct smoking of cigars and that of cigarettes, the difference in terms of secondhand smoke is a distinction without a difference. Unless one factors in elitism, of course.<br /><br />Anyone with a nose can tell that cigar smoke is more pungent than cigarette smoke. Unless, of course, you're the person smoking a $100 cigar. Then the smell is an "aroma", and this entirely subjective distinction is viewed as justification for tossing cigarette smokers under the bus.<br /><br />I think that hardly anyone is done any real harm by secondhand smoke, whether from a cigar or a cigarette. But once the idea of secondhand smoke risk is introduced regarding cigarettes, it's utterly laughable to witness the special treatment that is afforded to cigar smoking.<br /><br />Basically, the message is that while cigarette smokers are viewed as drudging proles, cigar smokers are VIPs. So the rules only apply to cigarette smokers, because morons like us supposedly don't know what the Hell we're doing to begin with.<br /><br />Don't even get me started on marijuana smokers. <br /><br />Cigar Smokers have "Cigar Aficionado". Pot smokers have "High Times". <br /><br />It's interesting that non-cigar tobacco users have no magazine. Only the internet. That's probably not such a bad thing these days, though.<br /><br />-WSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-88257589640720304682011-03-12T00:00:48.342+00:002011-03-12T00:00:48.342+00:00Ian, the problem is that they've studied the m...Ian, the problem is that they've studied the model of the antismoking industry so that they WILL avoid the biggest mistakes that brought down the last Prohibition. The old Prohibitionists didn't understand that you couldn't simply sweep in a mandate without adequate population brainwashing. Today they know better, PLUS they've got far more sophisticated media tools to bring that brainwashing about.<br /><br />The last Appendix in Brains was titled "Beyond Tobacco..." and I specifically pointed to where they were going to head with regard to alcohol. You can get a feel for what I argued by reading the document I used as a base for most of that chapter:<br /><br />http://www.icyte.com/saved/replay.waybackmachine.org/455388?key=160adade83c2e5ef288f1311b8a44e6fbedb7c96<br /><br />"Would you like a nice Dom Perignon with your meal? Yes? Ahhh, fine. Enjoy it. Please remember to take it out back by the dumpsters before opening and chugging it though. Have a nice dinner." <br /><br />- MJMMichael J. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181949578184965482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-719443481934610512011-03-11T22:36:39.871+00:002011-03-11T22:36:39.871+00:00My own perception on this is that there is still a...My own perception on this is that there is still a woeful- almost universal- lack of understanding of what is going on. The reframing of these issues as "public health" rather than "prohibitionism" or "temperance" is enormously effective in sidetracking people into compliance.<br /><br />But I think the big problem for the drinkers is that there is still this residual view from the relatively "liberal" phase from about 1965-1980 that "Prohibition" was such a disaster that it would never be done again. Drinkers and the drinks industry seem to just be incredibly naive in not understanding organised puritanism's capacity to frame discussions, revise history and so on. On the latter for instance, I've seen people saying, "oh, that stuff about Prohibition is exaggerated, it had lots of good effects" etc). It will be easy to reframe the last Prohibition as "a good idea, badly implemented" and "but we'll get it right this time, we are much more wise, better science, better social policy, blah de blah".Ian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15436369802742523036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-78696623852189160602011-03-11T20:03:13.066+00:002011-03-11T20:03:13.066+00:00It’s wonderful, truly heart-warming, to see the no...It’s wonderful, truly heart-warming, to see the noble brigade, the selfless benefactors of society – ASH – making time to further address the “twin” evils of tobacco and alcohol. And they’re helping those other pillars of society (and industrial partners) – WHO, McNeil, Pfizer, Novartis, GSK – to take up their rightful place as global rulers (We have a pill for everybody!).<br /><br />Although there is an ₤80 registration fee (taxpayer funded), attendees will have to endure the meager accommodations of the Hilton Grosvenor Hotel. Hopefully it won’t rain or the poor sods will have water dripping on their really important notes.<br /><br />The “moral” nobility want to ensure that tobacco (alcohol) control becomes even more socially entrenched. There is “accreditation” for the controllers – <i>“to enhance the professional standing of the smoking cessation specialism, through developing validation and accreditation systems”</i>. Smoking cessation specialism (gasp!!).<br /><br />And do we have experts for you. It’s the neo-eugenics lot: The Royal College of Physicians & Sticky-Beaks, Director of Public Health Science [Annihilation], Global [Sticky-Beaks] Public Health [Socialist Control] Unit, Director of the Institute for Social[ist] Marketing [Propaganda] & Sticky-Beaking.<br /><br />A cross-section of politicians will also be in attendance. They will surely sit back, wide-eyed and wide-mouthed, entranced by the statistical shenanigans and salesmens’ “moral” patter, imbuing every last bit of expert drivel, ever ready to inflict it on the public at large.<br /><br />Slippery slope? Let’s enjoy the wind through our hair as we slide towards the abyss.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-69160029411859483882011-03-11T19:56:17.435+00:002011-03-11T19:56:17.435+00:00But the drinks industry still dont get it do they,...But the drinks industry still dont get it do they, its all dont attack us attack those dirty smokers instead, they should have stood side by side with the smokers in the first place, these putitans can never and i repeat never be appeased, the drinks industry will learn this at their cost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-80537519834582226622011-03-11T18:22:57.952+00:002011-03-11T18:22:57.952+00:00When Andrew Lansley was interviewed recently he ad...When Andrew Lansley was interviewed recently he addmitted that he's refusing to talk to the Tobacco Industry. I wonder where he got that from. Here is a man with vision.<br /><br />Can you see the WHOs strings above his head?JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05239651363530826401noreply@blogger.com