Gian Turci, In MemoryBelinda
10th March 2010.
Today, National No Smoking Day, somewhat ironically marks an important anniversary. One year ago today we were shocked to learn of the death of Gian Turci, after a short illness. Gian was the CEO and founder of Forces International and also a founder of The International Coalition Against Prohibition, an inspiring leader and stirring orator. He spent the last thirteen years of his life fighting against anti-tobacco ('bastardos'), and never led anyone to believe that the fight was an easy one.
Not having known Gian well myself, I give you the appreciation of his friends and close colleagues - see main story.
The second World Conference of the The International Coalition Against Prohibition, dedicated to Gian Turci, takes place next Monday, 15 March. Entitled 'Are Guests Welcome?', it will cover a variety of topics, including smoking (tobacco and hoookah), alcohol, and the corrupting effects of anti-tobacco. Gian's memory will be honoured but we will miss his presence. (A live video link will be available so that those not able to attend will be able to follow the proceedings.)
Finally,
Nick Hogan was one of the people who were able to travel to Italy to pay their final respects to Gian at his funeral last year. It is most fitting in 2010 that Nick's release from incarceration also should fall on this day.
Go To Story »
Second TICAP Conference Registration Reminder18th January 2010.
Delegates are invited to register for the Second World Conference of The International Coalition Against Prohibition
The second conference will take place in The Hague, 15 March 2010. Entitled 'Are Guests Welcome? Prohibition and the Hospitality Industry', the conference is dedicated to the memory of Gian Turci, who died suddenly two months after TICAP's inaugural conference. Gian was the CEO of Forces International and contributed significantly in developing TICAP.
The venue is the Nieuspoort conference centre at The Hague.
Further conference details and programme at the link below.
Go To Story »
Roll Up For Free HypnosisBelinda
4th January 2010.
A press release offering two free sessions to anyone visiting their website points out the failure rate of nicotine replacement therapies (conservatively at 90 per cent!).
A link to an article on the Stop Smoking Tips website elaborates: 'If You're Ready To Stop Smoking, Products With Nicotine Are No Help', it declares.
But what I can say is this: 90% of the time, nicotine replacement therapy doesn’t work. I’m talking about quit-smoking products like nicotine gum, patches, lozenges, nasal sprays, and all the rest. I don’t want to knock these products, but let’s think about this for a second. If you’re trying to end your addiction to nicotine, why use products that just fill your body with more nicotine? Does this make sense? That’s no way to make a clean break.
And:
Too many people make the mistake of thinking that the most popular stop-smoking products are also the most effective. It’s simply not true. Nicotine replacement products are so popular because they’re brilliantly marketed and very easy to get. Plus, they’re perfect for people who want to look like they’re trying to quit smoking but who are not actually ready to do so. In other words nicotine gum and patches are an effective and relatively painless way to fail, for anyone so inclined.
If you’re truly ready to face up to this challenge, you’ll go nicotine-free right off the bat. Depending on how you choose to quit, you may invest in herbal products to quit smoking, or you may use things like stop smoking hypnosis, acupuncture, meditation, or therapy.
All of these things work. They may be more painful than using nicotine replacement products, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Pain is just the first stage of healing, and you’ll never heal from your nicotine addiction if you don’t steel yourself for a week or two of hard times. After all, there are worse things in the world.
All these are slogans and selling points and Freedom2choose would avoid some of this kind of terminology (for example the term 'addiction' applied to tobacco). Giving up is entirely an individual's choice. However within the cessation market it is good to see more remedies coming from outside the pharmaceutical model, and moreoever from a source that is explicitly critical of the claims made by the pharmaceutical industry. (For a similarly outspoken UK hypnotherapy practice see The Truth Will Out).
We likewise deplore the outright promotion of nicotine replacement therapies to would-be quitters. They do not work well and are a lucrative money-spinner for major pharmaceutical companies: furthermore they attract public subsidies in many instances of their use. An example is the recently reported Isle of Man prison, which has banned smoking completely for prisoners.
We look forward to a growing awareness of the profitable growth industry of smoking cessation, and to increased resistance to its political arm, the health lobby, as a result.
Go To Story »
Volume History of Rampant AntismokingBelinda
17th December 2009.
George Godber, British delegate to the 1975 Third World Conference on Smoking and Health, said that in order to prevent people smoking it would be 'essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to the smoke in the air'.
Rampant Antismoking is a 2003 book that the author has recently made available as a free download. This extract from the Rampant Antismoking website is the result of subsequent research and presents more of the conclusions from that conference, and the author's reflections on it; and an extract from 'The Godber blueprint':
In the 1970s, the idea of disease attributed to smoking was questionable. The ‘death toll’, a statistical exercise, attributed to smoking was questionable. The idea of ‘nicotine addiction’ was questionable. A glaring absence in the literature and official reports was/is coherent causal argument. There was/is only the constant assumption of cause, made to substitute for explanation. All that was required in epidemiological circles is that a small group concluded that a relationship was causal for that relationship to be promoted so, i.e., ‘causation’ by consensus. (see also RASGD)
[...]
Secondly, it must be emphasized that the many claims pre-date ‘evidence’. For example, there is a call for research to explore whether environmental tobacco smoke poses a danger to nonsmokers. Yet, Godber already refers to such “harm” and Banzhaf wanted a warning of such on cigarette packs. The ‘Conclusions’ section indicates “[a]ll organizations and associations concerned with matters of smoking and health should utilize their resources for, and provide their whole-hearted vigorous and unequivocal support to, legislative, administrative and other measures or initiatives for the protection of the health of non-smokers.”
[...]
Fifthly, of those presenting papers, by invitation only, at the conference, there is not one on tobacco-plant science or on psychology – either concerning psychological aspects of smoking or on the psychology of fanaticism. The view presented at the conference represents a very narrow, flawed view of smoking and a very flawed and dangerous view of Public Health. And, it would appear that this absence of expertise was not coincidental: The intent was/is to promote antismoking globally. While there has been ample opportunity over the ensuing three-plus decades to correct wayward claims, this has not occurred. Rather, an entire bureaucracy has been built to protect the original Blueprint and its fulfillment.
THE ‘BLUEPRINT’ SUMMARY:
Demonize the tobacco industry. Eradicate all industry advertising. The tobacco industry will be portrayed as always evil, public health as always good. Public health is always right - anyone questioning public health will be smeared (argument ad hominem) as a tobacco industry shill or sympathizer/apologist, i.e. wrong by association.
Smoking will be punished through taxation and the removal of smoking-permitted areas. Any reference to smoking/smokers will always be negative and never positive. Smoking will always be referred to as abnormal behavior. Smoking will be depicted as a non-normal or abnormal behavior. Smokers would be depicted, in a wholly derogatory sense, as ‘nicotine addicts’: Smoking would be ‘reduced’ to no more than nicotine addiction. In short, nonsmokers are ‘superior’, smokers are ‘inferior’.
Those in education and public health will be the first to be brainwashed into antismoking, and should be ‘exemplars’ of ‘normal’, nonsmoking behavior. Those choosing to smoke should have their employment terminated in these ‘exemplar’ industries, to begin with.
Most interesting is that in the ensuing three-plus decades since the Godber Blueprint, the research themes, ‘findings’, ‘interpretations’, re-definitions, and policy demands ALL magically align, one by one, with the Blueprint.
Go To Story »
Another Ban Bites The DustHelen Daniels
1st December 2009.
Plucky little Balkans?
I’d refer to the people of Croatia with a lot more admiration than that. They used people-power, and have now had their smoking ban revoked.
'What have the Balkans ever done for us?' asks this Guardian writer – Guardian writer!! 'Until I saw this picture, I would have said pretty bloody little.'
In Ulster, the free spirits, all those broths of boys so full of the rebel songs, lined up to smoke in the soft, soft rain. The thrawn, torn-faced Scots embraced the ban with hacking Calvinist fervour. England and Wales made angry noises, then succumbed: smokers through all these isles, for all our fine words, gave in like meek, coughing lambs.
Yet, as the article states, there is hope. In fact there is a lot of hope, as several bans have now been relaxed or revoked throughout Europe and the US.
All our citizens should be suitably catered for, and I wonder how much more damage needs to be inflicted upon our economy, our communities and our families before our politicians realise this, and before the people realise that they can call politicians to account for it all.
Go To Story »
Tobacco Company Nomination Appals Anti-smokersBelinda
24th November 2009.
This main story reports ASH (New Zealand) outrage at the nomination of British American Tobacco in JRA Best Workplaces Awards.
According to the story, the nomination was made by employees of BAT. ASH's concern arises from disapproval of BAT's product, and calls the nomination a 'cynical corporate responsibility stunt' – but they don't supply evidence that it is not a genuine recommendation from the company's employees. The irrepressible Ben Youdan (director of ASH NZ) alleges:
This is a classical move by the tobacco industry to present itself as a normal business. They no longer succeed in making smoking appear normal, so they're putting effort in to making themselves seem like a respectable corporate entity ...
The actual merits of being a good employer don't enter the equation. Anti-smoking group Te Reo Marama's director Shane Bradbrook is quoted as saying, 'any company that sold a deadly product should not be eligible for such an award'.
Professional anti-smokers occupy a very narrow world in which the only recognisable hazards are posed by tobacco and no other issue can take precedence. Last week we reported this story, in which a health authority is blind to its own discriminatory practices against smokers simply because they are not so defined in law. Similary anti-smoking groups expect the organisers of this competition to disqualify potential winners of a good workplace competition simply because of distaste for its products.
Disqualifying tobacco companies from such competitions would lead to more stories like this. Stories come to light of tobacco involving child slavery and environmental degradation – factors common to many industries in locations where children are commonly used as labour and environmental protection is limited. But attempting to make out that tobacco production uniquely exploits children and wrecks the environment is selective reporting, with the aim of discrediting a specific industry.
The anti-smoking lobby does itself no favours by both condemning the tobacco industry for bad employment practices in developing countries, and then condemning it for achieving a nomination for good workplace practices in a developed country. Denying companies the right to compete on the basis of workplace practices, based on disliking the company's product, will not make anyone's life better or safer. (This is not to say that there is no room for improvement in Malawian child welfare – of course there is.)
It would be quite unreasonable for the competition organisers to rule out certain industries from its contest on the basis of subjective judgments about the industry's worth to society. Promoting good workplaces, where workers can expect to be well renumerated and in general treated fairly, is a worthwhile goal in its own right. Fortunately JRA, the organisers, insist on being objective, and keeping the option available for any company to win a good workplace award.
Go To Story »
Smokers Need Not Apply. This Isn't Discrimination!Belinda
21st November 2009.
Smokers will be barred from employment with Susquehanna Health, Pennsylvania, from 1 January. Susquehanna Health states that it can get away with this because smokers are not protected under the law. As usual Michael Siegel succinctly explains why this is nonsense:
Let's first get one thing straight. The Susquehanna Health systems spokesperson is dead wrong when she states that: "tobacco users are not a protected class under the law, so prohibiting the hiring of tobacco users is not discrimination."
It's not illegal discrimination, but it sure as heck is discrimination.
The spokesperson herself essentially admits this later on in the article when she acknowledges that she is "aware that we may lose some top candidates as a result of this policy." She is thus stating that the policy represents a systematic exclusion of a group of people from employment upon a criterion that is not directly related to the qualifications for employment. That is, in fact, the definition of employment discrimination.
[my emphasis, original emphasis on 'definition' only]
This employer is in fact putting good health care secondary to pursuing a policy against smokers that is, as Siegel explains, based purely and simply on discrimination. The criteria for employing people should be their suitability. This decision must be contested. This employer will lose good employees to its competitors.
Not discriminating means not discriminating. It doesn't mean looking for those people who are unprotected in law and picking on them. It doesn' t entitle you to say, 'It's not discrmination because smokers are not protected'. Indeed it is hard to see what twist of logic would allow someone to morally justify discriminating against people simply because the law allows it.
This is a despicable policy with no legitimacy. It should also serve to illustrate that discrimination should be enshrined in law in a way that protects everybody – rather than on specific groups such as race, gender, sexual or otherwise. Only if applied to everyone does it protect us all from discrimination.
Go To Story »
Seigel: Reward For Highlighting Study ResultsBelinda
4th November 2009.
Michael Siegel has offered a financial incentive to any anti-smoking organisation that is prepared to broadcast the results of a recently published study which shows no significant difference in heart attacks in New Zealand following the implementation of their smoking ban.
The details are all in the main story.
The New Zealand data differ from data from other places that show no significant change in heart attack rates in Australia, Scotland, England, etc. because the New Zealand data are published in a study – unlike the data from the other places, which are raw hospital admissions/discharge data. It also covers a population base of 4.3 million, and so it is one of the largest studies available. If such a large study shows a nil result, there is no reason to draw a positive inference from any smaller study that shows a positive result.
The author is a fervent ban supporter, and declares that the evidence of an improvement in bar workers' respiratory health more than justifies indoor smoking bans. At the time of writing his readers in the comments column (accessible from the main article) have not managed to elicit any evidence from him that demonstrates such an improvement in the lung capacity of bar staff following smoking bans.
Dr Seigel however never misses an opportunity to point out on his blog where the scientific method is abused, and makes a nonsense of tobacco control.
Go To Story »
Please Boycott This Tournament!Belinda Cunnison
26th October 2009.
Largely neglected by the mainstream media (so far) this story was reported yesterday in the Observer. Tennis player Roger Federer has been urged by health specialists to boycott the Basle ATP World Tour.
Health specialists calling for the boycott of a sporting event? The only possible explanation is the partial funding of the tournament by tobacco company sponsorship. Why else would health specialists urge a tennis player to forgo an opportunity to play tennis?
Switzerland, not being part of the EU, does not confrorm to legislation emanating from Brussels that bans tobacco company sponsorship of sporting and other events. Switzerland nonetheless possesses its anti-smoking group, OxyRomandie, whose spokesman was determined to emphasise the hole rather than the doughnut: Of last year's tournament he said:
At the end of the match the young ball boys and ball girls received a medal from Roger Federer in recognition of having served the cause of Davidoff so well. Each medal bore the Davidoff logo in order to make sure that these potential future smokers will know which cigarette brand to choose when they start smoking.
He neglected to mention that the medal would remind the young people of their participation in ensuring the smooth operation of an international tennis tournaent.
The BMJ has also reported this story and being a non-subscriber I could only read up to where OxyRomandie is trying to get an injunction against the tournament being shown on Swiss television, on the grounds that tobacco advertising is banned on Swiss television, and Davidoff promotion has been prominent on bill boards and clothing in previous Basle tournaments
The fact that Swiss law differs from EU law infuriates anti-tobacco campaigners everywhere – in France their threats have derailed Eurosport from broadcasting coverage of the tournament in France.
The Observer claims that both the World Health Organisation and ASH (UK) are furious at the Swiss position. Once again these organisations presume to greater wisdom than Swiss voters by huffing and puffing about Swiss law. Futher pressure has come in the form of UNESCO's refusal of a donation from the Basle tournament's organisers.
Apart from withdrawing substantial funding from a major sporting event it is hard to see what such posturing can achieve. Enormous companies with healthy profits will use their profits, whatever the likes of the World Health Organisation thinks about it. it's standard business practice not to waste money on taxes if it can be used for something else. If there is too much advertising at the Basle tournament, this may be partly a result of the advertising ban throughout the rest of Europe.
Federer is said not to have answered the health specialists' call for him to boycott the tournament. He may well wonder whether pulling out of the tournament is likely to stop any of the ball boys or ball girls from smoking in the future.
Go To Story »
Tobacco OnlineBelinda
7th October 2009.
In this story, health medics lament that tobacco companies have discovered that they can promote tobacco on the Internet far more easily than through print and broadcast media.
Not only do tobacco companies promote their product online, but so do their users:
Numerous Facebook pages have been created for cigarette brands including Marlboro, Peter Stuyvesant and Lucky Strike - which allow 'fans' to register and post comments - though the extent of any tobacco company involvement or sanction is unclear.
So much for display bans being the 'last loophole' in advertising. When will governments stop trying to get the genie back in the bottle by increasing regulation?
Tobacco is still one of many remaining valuable investment options. They make profits and they are forbidden to use them in order to advertise through the usual channels. It should surprise nobody that they choose not to save their surplus till the end of the tax year. They prefer to promote their product, and no doubt companies from the mega billion buck advertising/marketing industry woo them with imaginative offers. (Perhaps such companies behave like arms manufacturers and work for both the tobacco companies and its rivals in the phamaceutical world – they could make nice money by advertising both nicotine patches and, say, Marlbrough Lights in different parts of the globe, or in cyberspace. Just an idea.)
If tobacco users are indeed so bemused by the recent international assault on tobacco and on their smoking activities that they begin to advertise tobacco by promoting it via Facebook pages, more revenue (in the form of tax revenue from proper marketing companies) is lost.
It is mere speculation that if the advertising of tobacco were still legal no one would bother promoting it on the Internet. But expecting the tobacco companies to save their profits for the tax collector is like expecting the sun to move from west to east. They are not allowed to sponsor anything or otherwise attempt to improve their public profile by financing arts, theatre, sports – even though such sponsorship would improve local facilities, and probably also local tax revenues, healthists cannot cope with the increased kudos that tobacco companies would gain.
'"Public health risks are being left behind in a world where our audiences are increasingly taking their cues from online messaging," Prof Olver said. "Monitoring the volume and impact of online health messaging and looking at the potential to regulate alternative forms of advertising being employed by the tobacco industry must be a priority."
Very sophisticated. More attempts to regulate. The health lobby struggles to keep up with its powerful enemy, because it refuses to play dead.
In most wars resolution has eventually to be sought. But it will be a long time before the health lobby admits any liability for its failure to vanquish tobacco (governments even get touchy when reminded that they are still investing in it!) The path we are on represents an expensive and unsatisfactory stalemate.
Go To Story »
Next 10 >>Showing results 1 to 10 of 560
