Inside the mind of a Professional Anti

I recorded a television programme last night.

The Consumer Show is not on my regular list of viewables but last night they were to talk about electronic cigarettes.

The programme was much as I expected.  There was the usual confusing statements about e-cigarettes producing "smoke" and referring to the devices as if they were just another type of cigarette.  There were a few of the regular objections, such as the cheeeeldren being poisoned by e-liquid which was neatly countered with the obvious reply that houses are full of stuff that is toxic and that they all have child-proof caps.

What struck me most about the programme were the two Antis.

There was Chris Luke who seemed to be more confused than anti, and makes the strange statement that e-cigarettes are dangerous as they contain the "highly addictive nicotine" while overlooking that the patches, gum and inhalers he doubtless recommends are also nicotine delivery systems.  He also quotes a mysterious "study" that showed that e-cigarettes are a "gateway" to real cigarettes, which he was lucky to get away with.

A professional anti-smoker

A professional anti-smoker

Then there was our old dear friend Luke Clancy, the man who has single handedly saved the Irish nation from itself – in other words a full time professional Anti-Smoker.

He is of course violently anti electronic cigarettes partly on the grounds that they "re-normalise" smoking, but his main objection to them seems to be that Big Tobacco are showing a financial interest in the e-cigarette business.

It strikes me as a sensible bit of diversion for the tobacco industry – as cigarette sales threaten to decline, then invest in a similar business that is flourishing.  However Clancy reckons this logic "is what they would have us think" as if there were some deep dark conspiracy where Big Tobacco is somehow going to poison the world with vapours.  This, to me is a perfect example of the pathological mindless obsession that drives the Antis.  If it has any connection with the tobacco industry then by definition it must be evil personified.  It never seems to occur to them that any business, whether it's Big Tobacco or Big Pharma is there to make profit and little else.

It's worth taking a look at the programme excerpt just to see Clancy in action.

The Persecution League

Is there anyone out there who still believes that Tobacco Control cares about your health?

Their latest move here in Ireland is to ban electronic cigarettes from all hospital properties.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that electronic cigarettes are by far the most effective way for people to quit smoking, so the logical step would be to encourage their use.  However the HSE claims that "there currently was 'no conclusive evidence' that e- cigarettes are safe for long-term use" and this is their excuse for the ban.  This is rubbish and they know it.  The only ingredient that could possibly have long term consequences is the nicotine and there is little that isn't known about that.

To date, none of their measures have had any effect whatsoever on smoking rates.  Indeed anecdotal evidence suggests that the Draconian measures have had an opposite effect by increasing awareness of smoking and also the "forbidden fruit" effect.

Tobacco Control actually has a league table whereby countries are scored, not on smoking cessation but on the levels of prohibition they have introduced.  The more a country persecutes smokers, the higher that country scores.   One would assume that higher persecution rates would correspond with lower smoking rates?  In fact, as Christopher Snowdon nicely illustrated, there is no correlation whatsoever.

Tobacco Control League Table

So here we have Ireland, second in the league, yet with one of the highest levels of smoking?  And they are congratulating themselves?  This alone shows clearly that they are not interested in health but merely in the persecution of smokers.

The exclusive club of Tobacco Control is interested in one thing only and that is the lining of their pockets through fat salaries and backhanders from their lords and paymasters in Big Pharma.

Why else would nicotine be a lethally addictive poison in e-cigarettes but actually good for the health in patches and gum as supplied by Big Pharma?

Think about it.

Time gentlemen please

A BAN on the sale of cigarettes in pubs and clubs has been proposed in a report by the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children.


Are they scared that all those kiddies who frequent the pubs and clubs will buy their fags there instead of in the corner shop?

It just means that those smokers who do frequent pubs and clubs will have to buy their supplies before going to the pub or club.  Mind you, any smoker who frequents a non-smoking pub deserves to be discommoded – the publicans didn't lift a finger to stop the ban so they deserve the crap trade and loss of business.

They also want to restrict the sale of fags so they can't be bought between 7am and 9am and between 6pm and they-don't-say-when.

Presumably this is to prevent the cheeeeelren buying fags?  If so they have a lot to learn as the kids will just carry on getting them from where they usually get 'em – bumming/borrowing/stealing from their parents/big brother/big sister, or far more likely, from the nice Man with a Van who doesn't give a shite about opening hours or age restrictions.

I suppose it will affect the honest worker who is law abiding [are there any of those these days?] who won't be able to buy his Silk Cut on the way to work any more?  Next we'll have employers complaining that workers are taking "shopping breaks" as well as "smoking breaks" and blaming the smoker when it's really the Anti-Smokers who are at fault?

Let's be clear about one thing – this is not about health.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with health.  It was never about health.  It is solely about making life as awkward as possible for the smoker, and they are doing it just because they can.

I bet they spend their evenings pulling the wings off flies.

Cause and effect

I have a little quiz for yiz all.

I saw a wee headline in the paper yesterday -

Less asthma in children since smoking ban

Now there are a couple of points to bear in mind here.

Firstly the "researchers" seem adamant that there is a connection.

Secondly, remember that the ban applies only to the workplace such as pubs and offices.

So on that basis which of the following is true?

A.  All children are in the habit of nipping in for a quick pint on the way home from kindergarten.

B. All children have office and factory jobs outside school hours.

C. Children are no longer allowed to smoke in class in primary school.

D. Smoking parents now have to drink at home and the extra smoke is curing the asthma.

E. The "researchers" are once more talking through their arses and are saying anything for a quick headline.

Now bearing in mind that E can't be the answer, as we all know that "researchers" know better than us and are as honest as the day is long, and that A, B, and C are unlikely, then I can only think that D is the right answer.

But then who am I to suggest such a thing?

Which do you think is the right answer?

The smoking ban ten years on

Most people must be aware by now that this weekend sees the tenth anniversary of the smoking ban here in Ireland.

The tenth anniversary of the Bully State, and the beginnings of a worldwide pogrom against smokers.

The Irish Times are devoting quite a few column inches to the subject which makes some quite interesting reading.

One of the first things that struck me was the very small number of people behind this move.  This wasn't as a result of any demands by the public at large.  This wasn't part of any government manifesto.  This was the wet-dream of a tiny number of rabid anti-smokers, led of course by Luke Clancy [a professional anti-smoker].

Anther item is the open admission that the research the whole move was based on was flakey at best -

Clancy – "The tobacco industry came in and said second-hand smoke isn’t really harmful to nonsmokers, that this is do-gooders trying to make trouble. But [the group] rejected the tobacco-company insistence that passive smoking wasn’t bad for you."

So the research that showed no harm was dismissed because it came from the tobacco industry and for no other reason.

Sara Burke – "There was a fantastic official in the Department of Health, [...] who just decided to make this happen – to get all the international evidence – to come up with a clever way of implementing it and get political support."

To put this another way – to make it happen the evidence was tailored to suit the cause.

Reading through the whole piece one realises that this was a tiny number of fanatics pandering to the egos of a small number of politicians.

Of course the media are pumping out all the usual rhetoric and propaganda – that 4,000 lives have been "saved" [if 4,000 would have died from passive smoking then active smokers must be dying at the rate of half a million a year?] and that smoking rates have declined since the ban [ignoring the fact that the rates were declining before the ban and that the annual rate of quitting has decreased in the last ten years].

What they don't tell us about is the decimation of the hospitality trade.  They claim that's due to supermarkets undercutting drink prices [which they did long before the ban], the tougher drink-driving laws and the recession [which didn't happen until four and a half years later].

They don't tell us about the loneliness and isolation amongst the elderly [in particular in rural areas] where the only means of social interaction was denied.

They don't tell us how this ban gave the green light to the righteous to chastise and pillory ordinary people who are going about their perfectly legal business.

They don't tell us that based on the "success" of this ban that the Health Nazis are not only threatening to direct the law into our private homes and cars, but are also turning their sights onto other areas of the population who are deemed to be "unfit" [non-Aryan?].

And the real benefit after ten years of the ban?

People say their clothes don't smell as much.