I am truly hoping that the lies and manipulations that Tobacco Control have used from the very start of their campaign, will become more and more obvious to the world. Society was groomed in a very nasty way and smokers made lepers by the myth of the harmful effects of Second Hand Smoke.
I was interested to see one amazing piece of information that came through as a comment? at the end of Simon Clarke's blog which I have copied and pasted here.
The Editor
Letters page
The Publican
By fax: 0181 565 4465
ASH Action on Smoking and Health
7th June 1999
Dear Editor
Re: smoking in pubs
It is true that the Health and Safety Executive is developing a new Approved Code of Practice to deal with passive smoking in the workplace (Pubs face new smoking bans, Codeis a blow, 7th June 1999). All the ACOP will do is provide meaningful guidance on how the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) should be applied to tobacco smoke in the workplace. This law already exists and has no exemptions for the hospitality industry. The ACOP will clarify the law and help publicans comply with it.
A new ACOP would not mean that all smoking must be banned in pubs. The heart of the law is that employers have an obligation to do what is reasonably practicable to reduce their employees' exposure. That could include segregation,ventilation, banning smoking at the bar or other measures. It also means the 'donothing and ignore it' approach is not an option. The best approach for any pub is to wholeheartedly embrace the Charter agreed by the Government and trade bodies such as ALMRand BII and to do what is reasonable and practical to protect their employees. That is good professional business, and it should not be a cause for alarm, despair or resistence.
Yours sincerely,
Clive Bates
If this is a genuine letter, all necessary legislation was already in place in 1999. That was the way things SHOULD have been." should not be a cause for alarm, despair or resistence." HUH!
WOW! Speechless. What happened then? Something really, really nasty - the build up to the final Smoking Bans that brought and still bring distress to smokers (and vapers), misery and loneliness, marginaliation and division and ruins the economy in many areas. It has been lethal. Now smoking is banned in many places that originally escaped the ban - out doors, prisons, old people's homes. IT DOES NOT STOP!
What a terrible pity. If Tobacco Control hadn't become an abusive ideology as it has, still creeping into every crevice of life like the camel in the tent, Vapers would have had a different history and future.
Letters page
The Publican
By fax: 0181 565 4465
ASH Action on Smoking and Health
7th June 1999
Dear Editor
Re: smoking in pubs
It is true that the Health and Safety Executive is developing a new Approved Code of Practice to deal with passive smoking in the workplace (Pubs face new smoking bans, Codeis a blow, 7th June 1999). All the ACOP will do is provide meaningful guidance on how the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) should be applied to tobacco smoke in the workplace. This law already exists and has no exemptions for the hospitality industry. The ACOP will clarify the law and help publicans comply with it.
A new ACOP would not mean that all smoking must be banned in pubs. The heart of the law is that employers have an obligation to do what is reasonably practicable to reduce their employees' exposure. That could include segregation,ventilation, banning smoking at the bar or other measures. It also means the 'donothing and ignore it' approach is not an option. The best approach for any pub is to wholeheartedly embrace the Charter agreed by the Government and trade bodies such as ALMRand BII and to do what is reasonable and practical to protect their employees. That is good professional business, and it should not be a cause for alarm, despair or resistence.
Yours sincerely,
Clive Bates
If this is a genuine letter, all necessary legislation was already in place in 1999. That was the way things SHOULD have been." should not be a cause for alarm, despair or resistence." HUH!
WOW! Speechless. What happened then? Something really, really nasty - the build up to the final Smoking Bans that brought and still bring distress to smokers (and vapers), misery and loneliness, marginaliation and division and ruins the economy in many areas. It has been lethal. Now smoking is banned in many places that originally escaped the ban - out doors, prisons, old people's homes. IT DOES NOT STOP!
What a terrible pity. If Tobacco Control hadn't become an abusive ideology as it has, still creeping into every crevice of life like the camel in the tent, Vapers would have had a different history and future.
Yes, the letter is genuine.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ash.org.uk/media-room/press-releases/letter-to-the-publican-re-protecting-employees-from-passive-smoking
Rose
Thank you Rose.
Delete“If Tobacco Control hadn't become an abusive ideology as it has…”
ReplyDeleteVP, TC hasn’t “become” an abusive ideology. It’s always been so. I refer you to the Godber Blueprint (http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ), a name given by the author to a collection of archival information concerning antismokers.
Firstly, we need to get some historical context.
It’s America that’s popularized antismoking insanity – again, and which other countries are following suit. The problem with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history. America has a terrible history with this sort of “health” fanaticism/zealotry/extremism or “clean living” hysteria – including antismoking - that goes back more than a century.
Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of it predating even the semblance of a scientific basis or the more recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”. Antismoking crusades typically run on inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and bigotry. One of the two major antismoking (and anti-alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise) crusades early last century was in America. [The other crusade was in Nazi Germany and the two crusades were intimately connected by physician-led eugenics]. The USA has been down this twisted, divisive path before. Consider the following: The bulk of claims made about smoking/tobacco were erroneous, baseless, but highly inflammatory. Unfortunately, the propaganda did its destructive job in the short term, producing mass hysteria or a bigotry bandwagon. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale.
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smoking
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981129&slug=2786034
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf
Some insight into the connection between American eugenics - California in particular - and German eugenics. Eugenics was popularized in America decades before Nazism. The Germans, including Hitler, were students of American eugenics.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL
The current antismoking crusade, very much in the eugenics tradition, is much like previous crusades. It is a moralizing, social-engineering, eradication/prohibition crusade decided upon in the 1970s by a small, self-installed clique of [medically-aligned] fanatics operating under the auspices of the World Health Organization and sponsored by the American Cancer Society (see the Godber Blueprint http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ). This little, unelected group, using much the same inflammatory rhetoric of its fanatical predecessors, decided for everyone that tobacco-use should be eradicated from the world – for a “better” (according to them) world. These fanatics were speaking of secondhand smoke “danger” and advocating indoor and OUTDOOR smoking bans years before the first study on SHS: In the 1970s, populations – particularly in relatively free societies – weren’t interested in elitist social-engineering, particularly by a group (medically-aligned) that had a horrible recent track record (eugenics). Given that their antismoking crusade would have otherwise stalled, the zealots conjured secondhand smoke “danger” to advance the social-engineering agenda, i.e., inflammatory propaganda. Until only recently the zealots claimed they weren’t doing social engineering, that they weren’t moralizing. Well, that’s a lie that’s been told many times over the last few decades.
ReplyDeleteThe zealots’ goal this time is not to ban the sale of tobacco but to ban smoking in essentially all the places that people smoke (combined with extortionate taxes); the intent is to turn smoking into an “immoral”, “shameful” act not fit for public view. Up until recently the social-engineering intent has been masqueraded as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. But even this fraud can no longer be hidden in that bans are now being instituted for large outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, campuses where there is no demonstrable “health” issue for nonsmokers. The zealots are now very open about the intent to reduce the incidence of smoking through punitive measures with a view to eradication. This dangerous mix of the medically-aligned attempting social engineering is a throwback to a century ago. People don’t seem to understand that the eugenics catastrophe of early last century was physician-led. We seem to have learned nothing of value from very painful lessons of only the recent past.
Mike Daube was an attendee of the World Conferences from their inception and a presenter at some. He has been a high profile antismoking (and anti-alcohol) activist in Australia. He was the first head of ASH UK back in 1971. He is very familiar with the intent of the current antismoking crusade.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Godber – 1975: “I imagine that most of us here know full well that our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking…… We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults.”
[Remember, this statement was made 6 years before the very first, forced study on secondhand smoke by the antismoker Hirayama and 18 years before the flawed EPA(1993) Report that declared secondhand smoke as a “hazard” to nonsmokers. Godber is also referring to smokers as “addicts” even though tobacco use was not then considered an addiction. It was incoherently redefined as an “addiction” in 1988 by the Office of the Surgeon-General, an organization that had long been hijacked by the very same antismoking zealots]
Mike Daube has been with the current antismoking crusade from its early days. Here’s an article by Daube of only a year ago (2012) that reiterates the Godber Blueprint:
“Extending restrictions on smoking in any environment so that it essentially becomes a practice only for consenting adults in private.”
http://theconversation.com/bring-on-the-end-of-tobacco-use-but-not-a-total-ban-tomorrow-8881
VP, I have a number of comments awaiting approval.
ReplyDeleteYes - wonderful comments! Thank you!
DeleteHere’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.
ReplyDeleteThe first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.
While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.
On top of all of this, there are now instances, particularly in the USA, where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate taxes.
At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing “social engineering” (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies peddling their useless “nicotine replacement” products. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American “model”) and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).
Excellent - hope I have permission to use this info in the future? Thank you.
DeleteFrom Bayer & Stuber
ReplyDelete“…..In the last half century the cigarette has been transformed. The fragrant has become foul. . . . An emblem of attraction has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.”
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886
This change from fragrant to foul has not come from the smoke which has remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one. Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory propaganda warps perception. Ambient tobacco smoke was essentially a background phenomenon. Now exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS) has been fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon like, say, sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they “can’t stand” the “stench” of smoke, or the smoke is “overwhelming”; there are now those, hand cupped over mouth, that attempt to avoid even a whiff of dilute remnants of smoke – even outdoors. There are those that claim that, arriving from a night out, they had to put all of their clothes in the washing machine and scrape the “smoke” off their skin in the shower. There are even those that claim they are “allergic” to tobacco smoke. Yet there are no allergens (proteins) in tobacco smoke to be allergic to.
And it didn’t stop with just the smoke. Cigarette butts – heretofore unheard of – suddenly became a “monumental problem” too, requiring drastic action. These are all recent phenomena born of toxic propaganda; it is an expanding hysteria. It says nothing about the physical properties/propensities of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization. Typical symptoms of anxiety disorder are heart palpitations, chest tightness, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, etc. These capnophobics (smokephobics) are no different to those irrationally attempting to avoid cracks in the pavement lest their mental world come crashing down. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda. It is the antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists and their toxic mentality and propaganda that have long been in need of urgent scrutiny.
1.
ReplyDeleteThe current antismoking crusade (Godber Blueprint) is a continuation of eugenics anti-tobacco. Smokers are viewed as “abnormal”, inferior to nonsmokers and that their reduction/elimination will produce a “better, healthier” society. The crusade involves the same personnel (the medically-aligned – physicians, biologists, pharmacologists, statisticians, and, more recently, behaviorists). It involves the same shallow physicalist/materialist (biological reductionism) framework that produces a perverse, sterile, reductionist definition of health stripped of the art, detail, and humanity of living. It involves the same reliance on flimsy population-level statistics that were first developed by eugenicists with the intent of population control. It involves the same emphasis on “prevention”; prevention is the cornerstone of the eugenics framework. It involves the same primacy of the medical establishment and social-engineering intent where all should be coerced – through punitive laws and regulations - to abide by this superficial, “medicalized” framework, i.e. medical imperialism. It involves the same denormalization and mass propaganda techniques, a constant playing on the primal fear of disease and death, to achieve social-engineering goals. These days the word “eugenics” is not used. The current obsession with physical health at the expense of all other dimensions has been called “healthism”. It is simply neo-eugenics by another name.
It’s not only antismoking. More recently we’ve seen the slide for control to alcohol, drinks, and food using the tobacco “template”. These all represent the behavioral dimension of eugenics – anti-tobacco/alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise – pushed by the same medically-aligned groups. One of the most recent developments is the “EU Lifestyle Policy”: “To this end it recommended the adoption of a ‘regulatory mix’ of cost-effective, population-wide interventions to reduce the impact of the four main NCD-risk factors, namely tobacco use, the harmful use of alcohol, unhealthy diets and lack of physical activity”.
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-eus-lifestyle-policy.html
So the problem is greater than just antismoking; unbridled antismoking is but one symptom. The problem is the greater eugenics context – physicalism and social engineering – that produces the quest for population control along a handful of superficial issues. Yet the situation is even worse. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a “reference bible” for psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. With each edition, the manual gets larger. With the most recent – DSM5 – there isn’t much left that people can be doing that couldn’t somehow be construed as some “mental disorder” requiring medical intervention and usually with pharmaceutical remediation (i.e., vested financial interest). For example, tobacco use is considered a “mental disorder” – “tobacco use disorder” – and this also allows for the sale of pharmaceutical products. Then there’s the emergence of “Global Health” Institutes within Public Health Departments. It’s the standard, dangerous, deranged belief that medicine covers all of health and that it’s the “right” of the medically-aligned to control the globe. We are [again] witnessing a medical take-over of society; the medical industrial complex gets ever larger. Welcome to the [medical] “therapeutic state”.
2.
ReplyDeleteSo, in historical context, can the medical establishment get things not only wrong but terribly wrong? Absolutely. Can the medical establishment be corrupt? Absolutely. Can the medical establishment wreak social havoc? Absolutely. For example, employment discrimination and the denial of medical treatment to those who smoke were also seen early last century. The medical establishment is very capable of demonstrating a dangerous, cruel streak that is socially destabilizing. Consider that 1 in 4 – that’s 25% - doctors responding in a recent poll indicated that they provided lesser care to smokers. If it was 1%, it should be sounding alarm bells; 25% is catastrophic. Alarm bells are ringing. But there are few that can hear them or are prepared to highlight the perversity of the trend. To their great shame, the medicos have [again] allowed a bigoted streak to flourish, i.e., institutionalized bigotry, that compromises their primary role of providing medical treatment to the best of their ability and in non-judgmental terms.
Then there are the vested financial interests. Government is a primary financial beneficiary from the antismoking crusade. In some countries, e.g., Australia, the level of extortionate taxes on tobacco has reached that of mega-robbery. It’s impoverishing and imposing greater stress on those of lower income. Even more disturbing is that there isn’t a shred of criticism from the mainstream. And it’s sucking large amounts of money straight to government coffers, eliminating its flow through the economy. Then there’s the Pharma companies peddling their next-to-useless (NRT) and dangerous (Champix) “smoking cessation” wares. In the antismoking fervor of America early-1800s to WWII there was also opportunism in peddling “quit smoking” wares. For example, see comments (including graphics) by “mag01”:
http://www.ecigarette-politics.com/blog/do-ecigs-save-lives.html
This time around the use of the questionable idea of “nicotine addiction” – a throwback to the 1800s – provided large, well-established Pharma companies with the opportunity of mass-scale sales and having the financial ability to directly influence the “crusade”. This time around it’s been the Pharma companies and Pharma-“philanthropy” (e.g., RWJF) that have been the major financers of antismoking zealotry, pumping billions of dollars over the last few decades into the “enterprise” - “cultivation of the market”.
3.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings us to a third group of the financially interested – antismoking individuals/groups. Given the terrible track record early last century concerning alcohol, immediate prohibition was not an option for the current zealots; the emphasis has been on “coercive measures”. The use of tax as a coercive measure to conformity has been a great boon for antismoking groups. Government has been only too happy to raise tobacco taxes from the constant chanting of antismoking groups; it means more money for government. But antismoking groups figured quite early that it’s also good for them. These groups then lobby government for a cut of the “booty” which keeps them in long-term, monomaniacal, comfortable employment, all at the expense of their victims – smokers. The same template is being applied/contemplated for alcohol and food/drink. First lobby for an increase(s) in taxation, first bleed the victims of money (and then more and more money), which provides a financial cut for lobbyists. Many of these lobbyists also attract obscene levels of funding from Pharma companies. If we look at just the flow of money from smokers/taxpayers to government/Pharma/lobbyists, all inflicted through baseless inflammatory rhetoric presented to the public as scientific and scholarly (appeal to authority), it could properly be described as a racket; it’s a great, monumental, white-collar money-spinning fraud.
Let’s not under-estimate the effect of inflammatory rhetoric. Politicians being met with a barrage of inflammatory rhetoric such as kill, poison, toxic, death, and being accused of complicity in the “death toll” unless they take drastic action to curb the “tobacco epidemic” can be overwhelming, making it all too easy to see the “merits” of extortionate taxes. But until the 1980s, politicians and the general public could discern moralizing zealotry and its dangers. The Godber Blueprint as an eradication-of-smoking-from-public-view crusade had little interest. We can go back even further. Imagine presenting the “EU Lifestyle Policy” to troops returning from WWII. The presenters would have been tossed in the nearest river. People fought to the death to protect their relatively free societies from tyranny in any form, including those that are promoted in more “benevolent” terms. The idea of “lifestyle regulation” by the medically-aligned would have attracted outrage immediately post-WWII, as it did right up to the 1980s.
The ideas of freedom and individual autonomy were paramount for relatively free societies. If government wanted to build roads and provide basic services, no problem. But that was where the line was drawn. Government was servant to the people. This is all gone; it’s a terrible loss of insight. I don’t think many in one-time relatively free societies, particularly the younger generations, have any grasp of what made these societies relatively free. And these societies have been easy prey for the dangerous partnering of the medically-aligned and the State – again, where the populace is turned into the property and servants of the State. It’s truly tragic. Eugenics thinkers “reason” in population-level terms. Sociologists that have joined in the crusade also “reason” in group or population-level terms. The idea of individual autonomy is non-existent; eugenicists have an utter contempt for the idea of freedom and individual autonomy. Their idea of the world is a controlled, engineered one in the hope of producing a “better” [physical] herd and where the “markers” used are physical only and based on an explosion of statistical blather. Physicalists view humans in no more than “herd” terms, a little more “complex” than other animals, or training/conditioning rats in a lab. The inflammatory propaganda of the current antismoking crusade is a good example of negative conditioning (producing revulsion/aversion) attempting to produce mass behavior modification. Again, this sort of conduct would have been viewed as repugnant, and rightly so, by most right up to the 1980s.
Liz, apologies for “swamping” your blog :) It’s information that’s been collected over the last few years that we would all do well to be familiar with. And, yes, feel free to move the information along.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Liz, you’re a “gem”. You seem to be a vaper that hasn’t become a rabid antismoker. That’s a commendable feat. Unfortunately, there are too many vapers that have bought into the antismoking hysteria and want to be distinguished from those “dirty, filthy smokers”. There are also e-cig manufacturers/sellers that prominently use antismoking slogans to sell their gizmos.
The Pharma companies peddling next-to-useless “nicotine replacement” wares have spent in the billions of dollars in “cultivating the market” for their products. They have funded antismoking individuals/groups to push for smoking bans, extortionate taxes, and other coercive/punitive “denormalization” measures. They weren’t going to endure the new kid on the block – e-cigs – that hadn’t spent a penny on manufacturing the hysteria and that now demanded a cut of the market. So the same closed propaganda network that was used to attack smoking/smokers is now being used on vapers. You can be sure that the most vocal e-cig opponents will be Pharma-connected, protecting their paymasters' "investment" and, therefore, their funding stream.
I don't mind you swamping my blog - makes a change! I wish more people would. And you are exactly right about righteous vapers. I always have to remember my age - I was not brainwashed. But if you HAVE been like many, especially younger folk, it is awfully hard to think differently. It's as hard as any one who has religious convictions, to realise they might not be true. It's a whole education process where the scales fall from your eyes - and it's really painful! Thanks for the excellent material! Keep in touch.
DeleteI should point out that the "Godber Blueprint" is not the book available for download at http://www.rampant-antismoking.com . The Godber Blueprint is the long web [home] page.
ReplyDelete"What happened then? Something really, really nasty"
ReplyDeleteSix months before that letter was sent to the Publican.
WHO LAUNCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO HELP SMOKERS QUIT
30 January 1999
"The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence"
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html
Highlights from a letter to GlaxoSmithKline from Clive Bates
7th March 2001
"ASH has worked closely with both Glaxo and SmithKline Beecham staff and always welcomed the active collaboration. I hope to continue this with the merged company. We have worked with GSK under the auspices of the WHO-Europe Partnership Project on tobacco dependence and at various one-off opportunities. ASH was instrumental in securing greater government commitment to smoking cessation products in the NHS National Plan and we have helped with PR for both Zyban and Niquitin CQ."
"Every time a smoker switches to ‘lights’ as an alternative to quitting the market for smoking cessation is diminished.
Most of the measures that drive people to want to quit smoking and use GSK products are exactly those that are opposed by tobacco companies.
Such measures include:
Restrictions on smoking in public places and workplaces"
"ASH has a small shareholding in GSK and I will be attending with others to question you and the Chairman on this situation."
Yours sincerely
Clive Bates
http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_635.pdf
WHO Europe evidence based recommendations on the treatment of tobacco dependence - 2002
"This was a three year project, funded largely by three pharmaceutical companies that manufacture treatment products for tobacco dependence,.."
"They were commissioned by the World Health Organization and have drawn on the experience of a number of European countries, including the four original target countries of the partnership project: France, Germany, Poland, and the UK."
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/1/44.full
Though the aim was to get people to use pharmaceutical smoking cessation products, you can't stop people allegedly harming themselves if they don't want to, so governments had to be given a compelling reason to explain and implement the bans and only the alleged perils of secondhand smoke would do.
Article 8.1 of the FCTC, the UK ratified the treaty on the 16 Dec 2004
‘Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability’. Parties therefore agree to adopt and implement, in areas of national jurisdiction , effective legislative, executive, administrative and/or other measures providing for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places. Such protection must be in place five years after the FCTC comes into force for a Party."
http://www.fctc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=84”
Here's the official announcement, one line hidden in mass of text.
"On the same day as these statistics were published, the UK ratified the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control."
http://www.gov-news.org/gov/uk/news/more_than_a_million_fewer_smokers_since_1998/77507.html
It's taken years for me to find out what happened to us.
Rose
Than you Rose! http://vapingpoint.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/what-was-nasty-thing-that-happened.html
Delete