{"id":107,"date":"2018-06-15T18:07:42","date_gmt":"2018-06-15T17:07:42","guid":{"rendered":"\/?page_id=107"},"modified":"2018-06-17T18:09:16","modified_gmt":"2018-06-17T17:09:16","slug":"the-crusaders","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/smokingoutthetruth.com\/the-paper\/the-crusaders\/","title":{"rendered":"The Crusaders"},"content":{"rendered":"
Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbeare this filthie noveltie, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossely mistaken in the right use thereof? In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned. A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.<\/em><\/strong> Tobacco control campaigners have seen themselves as crusaders, their triple goal to end the death and disease caused by tobacco, to end nicotine addiction and to destroy the tobacco industry.<\/em><\/strong> James clearly had a way with words. Interestingly his approach also shows that very little has changed in over 400 years with respect to the arguments against smoking and smokers: you should be ashamed to be a smoker; you are stupid to be a smoker; you should be scorned and held in contempt by others; you are harming yourself; and you smell. The only thing missing from today\u2019s repertoire is the alleged risk to others. Of course James I\u2019s position was a personal attitude rather than a scientifically arrived at judgement. In this he has gained much support over the years.<\/p>\n Although his \u201cCounterblaste\u201d was delivered in 1604 James was by no means the first to take against tobacco. The first two recorded European smokers were Rodrigo de Jerez and Luis de Torres who sailed with Columbus in 1492. On returning to Spain de Jerez was jailed by the Inquisition for seven years. In 1588 Lima was the location for the first recorded restriction on tobacco usage, when Catholic priests were banned from taking snuff or from smoking before administering mass.<\/p>\n Over time smokers have been taxed (frequently, heavily, everywhere); maimed (Russia); permitted to smoke only once a day (Connecticut); and banned entirely (New Amsterdam in history, Bhutan today). With the exception of Bhutan, no generally recognised government currently prohibits the sale of tobacco products, with government\u2019s generally preferring to warn against the use of tobacco (to varying degrees) but to enjoy also the benefits of taxing the consumption of tobacco.<\/p>\n The aims of tobacco control campaigners, who see themselves as \u201ccrusaders\u201d are threefold:<\/p>\n We should highlight immediately that these are not our interpretations of how tobacco control campaigners see themselves and their aims they are the words of the current head of ASH in the UK, Deborah Arnott<\/a> writing in 2012.<\/p>\n Of these three objectives the last two are immediately questionable. As we have discussed, nicotine per se is not harmful and for many brings benefits. Addiction is moot and whether it should matter more broadly that someone seeks to use nicotine is questionable. Remember that ASH promotes the use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and so cannot be \u201canti-nicotine\u201d but is, quite clearly, anti-smoking and anti-smoker.<\/p>\n Seeking to \u201cdestroy\u201d an industry which produces a product which is legal, very heavily regulated and very heavily taxed has to be brought into question by shareholders in any industry where any individual or group may choose to consider the product \u201ccontroversial\u201d. Moreover it seems scandalous that this should be the stated aim of an organisation which is funded in large part by taxpayers<\/a>.<\/p>\n Returning to the first there is the issue of conflating \u201ctobacco\u201d with \u201ccigarettes\u201d, a common \u201coversight\u201d made by tobacco controllers but rarely corrected. It has long been established that there is a continuum of risk in tobacco, with the highest risks being associated with combustion, i.e. with cigarettes.<\/p>\n There are other ways of using tobacco without combustion and have been for many centuries. Snuff was the predominant form of usage when tobacco was first introduced into mainland Europe, and snus is the dominant form of tobacco usage in Sweden and Norway. Sweden has the lowest rate of cigarette consumption and the lowest incidence of lung cancer in the EU<\/a>. There is no evidence of any greater risk of mouth cancers or dental problems. Indeed one commentator has pointed out that, statistically, the risk of dying from smokeless tobacco use is about the same as the risk of dying in a car accident.<\/p>\n
\nJames I, A counterblaste to Tobacco, 1604<\/p>\n
\nDeborah Arnott, 2012<\/p>\n\n