Dirty Tricks

For the past few weeks, it's been a struggle to write new blog posts. Every time I sat down to write a new post, either somebody else had already covered it on their blog or something else happened and I decided to abandon my draft.  It happened again yesterday. I was working on a new post, tentatively titled "Black Hole," which was about how we've heard nothing about the plain packs consultation from Andrew Black at the Department of Health, when the political editor of the Guardian, Patrick Wintour, published this article titled "Government to legislate for plain cigarette packaging this year." 

Ministers are to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes along the Australian model with legislation this year, after becoming convinced that the branding is a key factor in why young people start to smoke.

The legislation, to be announced in the Queen's speech in May, is also expected to ban smoking in cars carrying anyone aged under 16 years. Ministers acknowledge that the ban is likely to be difficult for the police to enforce, but they believe peer group pressure will have an impact similar to the ban on drivers using mobile phones.

David Cameron referred to the possibility of introducing plain packaging last week, without putting a timetable on it. Ministers are convinced that the ban is necessary to take the next step to reduce smoking in the UK.

"We are going to follow what they have done in Australia. The evidence suggests it is going to deter young smokers. There is going to be legislation," said a senior Whitehall source said.

Interestingly, my draft post anticipated this precise course of action happening even to include a total ban on smoking in all private vehicles (regardless if children are present) because that's the only way such a ban can be enforced.  The only difference in my draft being that Andrew Black's plain packaging consultation report would be released first (eventually) and then the government would enact its totalitarian legislation for plain packaging and add the smoking in private vehicles ban to the legislation.

The Guardian article claims that our government, with its so-called "open mind," has already made its decision without ever seeing the consultation report. I would have thought that government would at least pretend to go through the motions. Yet, I also believe that the government made its decision before the consultation was held, and that everything to date has been merely a box-ticking exercise designed to give the illusion of fairness and democracy.

So what's happening?  Is this yet another one of ASH's and CRUK's dirty, under-handed confidence tricks, as suggested by both Christopher Snowdon and Simon Clark?  Or is our government so brazen in its disregard for democracy and its citizens that it will abandon all pretence of fair play and do whatever it likes?  Could it be both? I think so.  Indeed, our ministers aim to deceive us at every opportunity, for here we see Stephen Williams MP, who is ASH's front man in government,  re-tweeting the Guardian article as though it is fact:
 

I think it is obvious that the government does not have an open mind.  It never had an open mind about this. The consultation never would have happened if the unelected civil servants hadn't already made up their minds on behalf of the elected MPs, who will do as the civil servants tell them.  Let's look at Patrick Wintour's article again and note the source.

"There is going to be legislation," said a senior Whitehall source said.

Who is this source?  Andrew Black?  Some other unelected tyrant who knows what's best for you?  And why did the Guardian run this piece before the consultation report has been published?  And why hasn't the report been published?  The consultation closed 10 August 2012, and here we are in the first week of March 2013.  Almost all consultations have their findings published within three months, and yet this one has been mysteriously delayed for an additional four months. This is unprecedented.  And it reeks of corruption and deception.

Perhaps we should expect Andrew Black's report any day now. Perhaps the Guardian article is advance notice.  And when Black's report does get published, what kind of trickery and deception will we find in it? 

I think we all know the answer to that.

The Smack-Down of Stephen Williams MP

The House Magazine is quickly becoming one of my favourites.

First, for having the balls to wrap its magazine with an advert opposing plain packaging (although they did kind of apologise for it afterwards, and I think they should not have done so, but it's their business).

Second, for publishing an exchange of correspondence between Stephen Williams MP and Ian Paisley MP in respect of plain packaging, called "The Dialogue: Plain Cigarette Packaging."

And third, for making that correspondence available on-line for all of us to enjoy Ian Paisley's glorious smack-down of Stephen Williams MP, misrepresenting all of those "gullible women and children" of Bristol West.

I do not have permission to post the entire conversation in full in this post, so with huge thanks to HOOPs for tweeting the original link, here are a few choice, tasty excerpts taken from Ian Paisley MP's replies to Stephen Williams:

I don’t know what you were smoking when you wrote this but really you need to stay off it because misleading information actually diminishes any strength your argument might have.

I want to see a health policy in place that is honest and that works. You have no evidence to suggest standardised packaging would actually decrease consumption. Government ought to introduce policy on the basis of evidence not seek evidence on the back of untested and unproven policy.

I see that you appear to be arguing from the preposterous position that you want to standardise cigarette packs for health purposes yet at the same time legalise class B drugs and encourage an unlawful product to be sold legally in the UK. I think your priorities are at odds!

You have emailed me now three times giving ample opportunity to advance one shred of evidence that standardised packets will 1) Prevent children from smoking 2) Reduce overall consumption and 3) Make a significant change to the health of the nation. Clearly you have no evidence. This is just some whimsical and fanciful notion based more on PR than substance. Stephen, you are in Government, it needs to be better than this.

That's a pretty awesome smack-down, Mr Paisley.  You have earned a gold star!

One of things (actually, almost everything) that Stephen Williams MP said is quite alarming (emphasis added):

The brands have glitzy names like “vogue” [...] Packs and cigarettes would be standardised without appealing shapes, designs or names.

Oh, so is it the tobacco control industry's plan to prevent BAT from even using its brand name Vogue?  Sure looks that way.  Or perhaps Stephen Williams MP is merely confused,  as ever?

I have no idea what you just said, but oh, pardon me whilst I scratch my arse. Ah, that's better.
Image source ASH UK (because you all paid for it, so why not?)

Gross Negligence: Prof John Britton and Stephen Williams MP Should Resign

In this blog post, I aim to make the case that both Professor John Britton and Stephen Williams MP should resign due to both gentlemen evidently exhibiting gross negligence in the course of their duties.  Let's start at the very beginning.

If you haven't read the Hands Off Our Packs blog post by Angela Harbutt, titled FOI reveals arrogance of ASH, please do so now, as it will give you the necessary details of what I am about to cover. 

In the latest HOOPs blog post, we learn that a junior Research Fellow at The UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies (UKCTCS) at the University of Birmingham sent an e-mail, to numerous unknown parties in tobacco control, that asked colleagues to wantonly cheat the plain packaging consultation by signing multiple charities' petitions in order to falsely inflate the numbers of those who support plain packs.

Who sent the morally-bereft e-mail asking others to sign multiple petitions is hardly the issue here.  No, what we need to concern ourselves with is the person who approved the e-mail to begin with. That man is Professor John Britton, of the University of Birmingham, who is one of the directors of UKCTCS as well as a board member of ASH UK.  

The FOI also reveals that Professor John Britton personally approved the e-mail that was sent to a unknown number of people.  If in fact he did not see one of his junior research fellows asking people to sign multiple plain packaging petitions, that is gross negligence. If, however, he did notice it and said nothing until someone pointed it out, that is also unforgivable and negligent.

The simple fact is this:  Professor John Britton failed to do his job properly. It matters not at all who sent the e-mail, which was seen by untold scores of tobacco controllers and public health workers, people who may or may not have signed multiple petitions as initially directed, believing it was sanctioned by UKCTCS. The only thing that matters is that Britton approved the e-mail the first time around, which was sent out and redistributed.

It is evident then that Professor John Britton, Director of UKCTCS, board member of ASH UK, is to blame for this atrocious breach of the public's trust.  For this reason, Professor Britton must step down from his roles with UKCTCS and ASH immediately.  If the anti-smoking movement is to have any legitimacy, any integrity, it cannot be whilst Britton is at the helm of any tobacco control-related matters.

Britton's resignation from UKCTCS and ASH would be mandatory, however, perhaps Britton should also retire from his role as an educator.  Whether this man has any business influencing the minds of our young adults is certainly a matter for debate, but we would expect Britton to do the right thing and remove himself in order to satiate the public's need for order and trust in Britain's finest educational institutions. We believe that Britton remaining at University of Birmingham as an educator dishonours every British citizen who believes in fair-play, integrity and responsibility as fundamental aspects of our educational systems.  For the sake of Britain's respectability, for the sake of its students past, present and future, Professor John Britton should step down and retire.

* * *

There is also the case of Stephen Williams MP to consider.  Stephen Williams, elected by the good and decent peoples of Bristol, to honourably hold the office of Minister of Parliament and to act on the people's behalf, shamelessly signed off a document created by ASH UK, the secretariat for the APPG on Smoking and Health, that falsely suggested the that Hands Off Our Packs Campaign was complicit in falsifying signatures for its petition against plain packaging.

The covering letter, dated 19 October 2012, signed by Stephen Williams MP

An excerpt of the article in the APPG on Smoking and Health winter bulletin.

To understand the scope of Stephen Williams's gross negligence, it is important to note several things.

First, the covering letter is dated 19 October 2012, signed by Williams and therefore this is a de facto endorsement of the contents of the enclosed bulletin.

Second, as Simon Clark notes in his blog post on this matter, he provided a response to the Department of Health's Andrew Black on 30 August 2012, in which it is written that the signature gatherer acted on his own accord, not at the behest of the Hands Off Our Packs campaign team.  Nearly 50 days had elapsed between Simon Clark's response to the Andrew Black and when Stephen Williams sent out the winter bulletin to members of Parliament.

Third, note the language in the bulletin.  It says "campaigners running a petition against plain packaging cheated to boost their results" in the opening paragraph.  This is untrue. We know that it was only one person. Using the word "campaigners" and displaying the Hands Off Our Pack logo next to the article deceptively implies that many or all of the people working for the Hands Off Our Packs campaign had falsified signatures to boost results. This is most untrue.


And this winter bulletin, signed off by Stephen Williams MP, was subsequently distributed to other MPs in a most false and deceptive ploy to tarnish the good names of hundreds of thousands of British citizens who signed the petition in good faith as well as the HOOPs campaign team

Did Stephen Williams MP seek out to verify the circumstances of the incident at any time over the preceding 50 days before the bulletin was distributed to ministers?  No, he did not. And whilst a young man took it upon himself to add two signatures to the petition, which is completely unacceptable, that is hardly of an order comparable to UKCTCS's actions, where a person knowingly and wilfully told others to falsify signatures on multiple petitions. At no time did Stephen Williams MP seek to understand or clarify the incident with the HOOPs campaign or FOREST before sending out the document to MPs.  Almost 50 days had passed, more than enough time to write the truth in the winter bulletin. It would seem, however, the Stephen Williams MP is not interested in facts or the truth.

Is this the behaviour we should expect from our MPs? To defame honest British citizens working on a campaign and to deliberately mislead fellow MPs?  I put to you that it is not. We should not stand for it, and we expect a much higher standard of those we elect into public office. This is scandalous behaviour.  For distributing the defamatory winter bulletin and endorsing its contents, Stephen Williams MP has disgraced and tarnished every member of the APPG and all of his fellow ministers in Parliament. He should at once apologise for his transgressions to all of the good citizens of Britain.  His only recourse at this time is to immediately and voluntarily resign from his role as the Chairman of the APPG on Smoking and Health.  If Stephen Williams MP had any integrity whatsoever, he would immediately resign as an MP as well. 

It is evident to us that both Professor John Britton and Stephen Williams MP have acted irresponsibly and with gross negligence. They have tarnished the reputations of their colleagues, perhaps irreparably.  We therefore ask both men to do the right and honourable acts of resigning from their positions of enormous influence on the good and decent citizens and young students of Britain.  To do anything less shames all of us and destroys the confidences we have held in our trusted public figures and esteemed educators for centuries.

Blackout

Ever since the plain packaging consultation began, there have been quite a few curious happenings at the Department of Health's Freedom of Information site.  In case you aren't aware of how the DH typically releases FOIs to the public, it works like this:

Once every three months, the DH quietly posts up a full disclosure log document listing the FOI requests that were received and released to interested parties over a given quarter, for example:  FOI releases to requests made from 1 January to 31 March 2012. 

It's not exactly a "full disclosure."  If you want to know what was released, you have to write to the DH and request copies of the correspondence relating to a particular FOI.  I don't know why they do it this way, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's to make it a lot more difficult for people to be aware of what's going on. How many people in the general public are going to take the time to write to the DH for a particular matter?  The answer is likely to be very few, and I would think that the DH counts on it. What the public doesn't know, and what the press won't tell you, won't hurt the government.  

Because it would be just as easy to dump all of the documents on the site -- to make them all available to all UK citizens at once when they release their disclosure log.  We know that the DH can do it.  They've done it recently.  For some "unknown" reason last September, the DH released all of the documents pertaining to this FOI request:  

FOI release – correspondence about the Government’s consultation on the packaging of tobacco products:

Click to enlargify

Obviously, somebody at the DH believed this particular FOI, as opposed to 1,647 FOIs released over the previous seven months (Jan 2012 - July 2012)  in the typical fashion, was in the greater public interest to provide all of the documents on their server. The question is not necessarily "who did it?" (we may never know the answer to that, but I can of course speculate wildly) but rather "why was this done this way?"  Whose purposes are best suited by publishing the FOI in this manner?  Because the documents released seem to indicate that one signature gatherer for the plain packs opposition was cheating, caught out by none other than the man responsible for the plain packaging public consultation, Mr Andrew Black.

Indeed, "filling in screeds of made up names," said Simon Chapman on Twitter on 20th June 2012, a time before anyone else in the general public had been made aware of Andrew Black's confrontation with a signature gatherer near Waterloo station.  How on earth did Chapman come to know this information? Who shared it with him? And just as important, why did someone in the DH share that knowledge with a man who lives in Sydney, Australia, or at least share it with someone else who later shared it with Chapman?  Again, we need to ask, whose purposes does it suit to do this? 

(And just another curious aside here:  the very first mention anywhere of the FOI release up on the DH's site was by Mr Collins, a volunteer ambassador for CRUK, a man who tirelessly campaigned for plain packaging. Do note, I'm not saying that Collins made the FOI request, but he certainly knew about it before most people. How? Maybe I ought to ask him...)

Another thing to pay careful attention to when noting the curiousness of this release is the length of time it took the DH to publish the data on their web site -- just a few short days over a month.  They sure did not waste any time -- it takes longer than that to post up the disclosure log for previous quarters.  To be fair to the DH's FOI office, they are incredibly efficient when responding to FOIs.  Here's a table of their performance for this year -- it's perfect, even in February when they received a massive 672 requests:

Source: https://www.wp.dh.gov.uk/transparency/files/2012/10/FOIperformancestatisticsJan2011todate.doc

Also in fairness to the DH, it also broke usual form again in posting up another FOI release from someone who had requested documents about the pro-plain packs campaigners, also in just over a month and some change, which was:  FOI release – correspondence about the Government’s consultation on the packaging of tobacco products:

Why they published this request is also a mystery, although we must assume they did it to placate the opposition to plain packaging, to avoid a scandal, perhaps.  "We published both sides' FOIs," they can claim. Regardless, we know that the DH can release the full contents of any FOI request when it suits them. But normally, they just release the disclosure log and (one assumes) quietly hope that nobody notices it and/or bothers to write in for the materials pertaining to any given request.

But what is missing from all of the FOI correspondence the DH has released to date is Simon Clark's response to Andrew Black in respect of the "screeds of made up names" by a lone signature gatherer for the Hands Off Our Packs campaign.  And we must ask the "why question" again.  Why has the DH not released that information?  

Well, we know it fell out of the time period of the first FOI request, so it cannot appear in that batch, obviously, but even so, the public deserves to have all of the information to hand about the plain packs consultation.  The DH has released two FOIs so far.  Surely, the answers to the first FOI are equally important?  Yes?  No?  Apparently not, because there is no more information to be gleaned from the DH's FOI site, and questions raised there remain unanswered. Publicly, at least.

And there is something else -- something that is most unusual and disturbing -- happening on the Department of Health's Freedom of Information page.  As I wrote above, they usually release three-months' worth of FOIs in their full disclosure log, all at one time. Yet all of a sudden -- well, let us have a look at what they've done recently by comparing it to how it used to be done:

Here is how FOIs are typically released on the DH's site.

And here is how they are doing it this month. Spot the difference!

Did you spot the difference? What's changed?  And what's missing?

Well, they've switched from releasing three months' worth of FOIs in one posting, to posting up the months individually.  And can somebody explain what happened to September's posting?  Why, that's curious. It's not there.  Where is September?  Why isn't September posted?

Better question:  What, exactly, is the DH hiding by not releasing the disclosure log for September 2012? Is there something in September's releases that damages the plain packs supporters?

OK, OK, OK, I know.  Let's not jump to conclusions. I gotcha. True, this is all circumstantial. Right?  We have no evidence of any deliberate attempt by the DH, a government body, funded by the taxpayer, to obfuscate the truth by withholding information from the general public. The DH may have a very good reason for not releasing September's disclosure log. Maybe they forgot.  It could happen.

But when you add up all of the circumstances that we already know to date -- that the DH clearly wants to implement plain packaging, and the early release of the plain packaging FOI request, and how Simon Chapman knew about the "screeds of made up names" well before anyone else on this side of the world ("screeds" is certainly a gross exaggeration, but then we come to expect nothing less from the Root of All Evil), and of course the sudden changes to how the DH is presenting their full disclosure logs, and ...

... it stinks.  Something is curiously amiss. Something is going on. I can feel it, balls to bones.

It certainly appears to me as though the DH is desperately trying to influence the opinions of the public and our ministers in Parliament by presenting a wholly-biased view of the facts and by withholding vital information about what happened during the consultation, to deliberately mislead them into believing that those who oppose plain packaging had cheated.  Appears that way to me. But I do not know.

There is, however, one man who certainly does know.  Andrew Black. We must ask our MPs to investigate whether a known tobacco control advocate has any businesses at all presiding over a public consultation that must remain unbiased and fair.  This is scandalous. Yes, scandalous.

And I would wager anything that Stephen Williams MP also knows what is going on, along with the other anti-smoking members of the APPG on Smoking and Health and ASH. But of course I have no proof of collusion, no proof of deliberate obfuscation, and no proof of corruption throughout the Department of Health. But I suspect there might indeed be something in September's FOI release that is going to hurt them. And I suspect that the reason why we aren't seeing it is because they don't want you to know what is happening. Because all things being equal, it is a clear lack of transparency to exclude the disclosure log from September, especially when we are expecting the report on the consultation any week now.

There are many unknowns at present. I would not be surprised if the DH tries to throw out the signatures gathered against plain packaging. It's a likely scenario as any. But if they do not throw out the signatures, then perhaps they will probably ignore the public's will and do what they like. That is equally likely. 

The game is afoot, except this is no game. This is very real for a great number of Britons. The livelihoods of real people, ordinary and hard-working citizens in Britain, are at stake here, and they will indeed by greatly harmed by plain packaging if the government goes against the public's will and proceeds to implement it.  

It's almost time we made our move and put an end to this rampant bullying against a significant percentage of the population.  So stay tuned for more details over the coming days.

UPDATE:  Rather timely, Simon Clark has just posted up his response to Andrew Black regarding the signature gatherer incident at Waterloo station.  You ready for this? The kid that Andrew Black confronted added two signatures!  Two! How the hell does two forged signatures constitute "filling in screeds of made-up names"?  It just proves that the people working in the tobacco control industry are deliberately and maliciously deceiving everyone. And this includes some of our elected representatives in Parliament, like Stephen Williams MP.  Do not trust these people! They are not telling the truth.

UPDATE 2:  Dick Puddlecote shine more light on the corrupt and deceptive practices of the APPG on Smoking and Health, and it's corker!  I really don't want to spoil it for you. ;)

UPDATE 3:  On 22 November 2012, the DH finally released the September 2012 FOI disclosure log.  I cannot be certain that this blog post had anything at all to do with that, but it's a nice thought.

The Paranoia of Stephen Williams MP

I'm just a blogger. I don't work for a tobacco company. I'm not paid to write this blog. I am no different or better than any of you who come to read this blog -- however you got here, either accidentally or regularly, whether you followed a link from another's blogroll or clicked a link on someone's page. I'm just a guy who gets by, like you, but perhaps with a little more time than you have to sit down and write about the insanity we all see every day.

So it's always hilarious to see someone accuse me of being a paid campaigner for Big Tobacco. It's even more funny when it's an elected member of Parliament that accuses me of this. I mean, seriously, this is a guy who was elected to represent his constituents, somebody who should be able to see things for what they are and take a reasoned stance on behalf of those he represents.

The story begins a bit earlier.  Bear with me.

Yesterday, the gloriously paranoid Stephen Williams MP representing Bristol West tweeted thusly:

Now stop to think about this for a moment.  Here's a supposedly respected and supposedly honourable member of Parliament tweeting a conspiracy that anyone who disagrees with plain packs is under the employ or guidance of Big Tobacco. Remember: THIS IS AN ELECTED MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. So much for the honourable and respected bits.

Does Stephen Williams have any evidence that the Rural Shops Alliance is a front for Big Tobacco?

No, he does not. So, lacking any proper evidence and being a petty and sad bastard , it seems because someone would dare to do a proper study on the effects that plain packs will have on British shopkeepers, retailers and consumers, and declare that the tobacco company who funded the study had no influence at all on how it was carried out nor the results, then the only logical conclusion in Stephen Williams's petty, tiny, anti-smoker brain is: Big Tobacco rigged the study; that the Rural Shops Alliance is being used by Big Tobacco.

Seriously.  This near-brainless stooge of the tobacco control industry, who gets paid with your money it must be said, tweets a rubbish conspiracy theory like this just because real people who don't sponge off of the taxpayer say plain packs will hurt businesses...?  Really?  C'mon, really?  Is this what we pay our elected politicians to do? Tweet shite like this?  Apparently. How sad is our government?  (You don't have to answer that, it's rhetorical.)

One must suppose that only Big Pharma or the Department of Health is allowed to fund research, because yeah there's no conflict of interest there. Ahem. One must also suppose that the real employers and businesses out there (not the people who work in the public sector), you know the ones who actually pay taxes and contribute real jobs to the economy ... well, one supposes that their research and opinions do not count in this country, and that every last one of them is being played by Big Tobacco.

Right now, there must be thousands of Big Tobacco execs sitting outside every rural shop in Britain and telling the owners how to run their businesses. Yep. That's how big the conspiracy is.  Indeed, look outside your windows now, and Big T execs are there, telling you to read this blog.  They are! They've tapped into the hard line and are sending these words to your screen!  Just look! It's those guys hiding in the shadows and wearing the fedoras. Don't you see them? Stephen Williams MP must clearly believe in them. 

These guys are right outside your door!

You know, I've written about Stephen Williams before.  He is this blog's inaugural Super Twat of the Month. I don't desire to rehash old matters, though. Let's focus on the now.

After Stephen Williams MP tweeted his rubbish conspiracy theory to his adoring and faithful 2000+ followers, the lovely and erudite Angela Harbutt responded as follows:

This is true. The public, police and a host of others have said plain packaging is stupid and will cause a great deal of problems without actually addressing the issue of whether anyone on the planet (or even in the universe) smokes because of a shiny trade mark on a packet of cigarettes.

This is where I come in.  I saw Angela's tweet and replied to her with this:

Did you note who retweeted it?  Blog favourite Stephen Williams MP.  Why would he do that?  Are there really such things as passive aggressive retweets on Twitter?  Did Stephen Williams MP hope that his legions of adoring followers would rise up and attack me for my views?  Is that the reason why Stephen Williams MP of Bristol West retweeted my response to him, or was he -- and this is being generous I admit -- hoping to engage a fellow citizen in a rational debate?

I think we all know the answers to those questions.

Turns out, there are no legions for Stephen Williams MP.  No. Stephen Williams has only one (just one) fan in Britain who would even mention my tweet, and this guy called me a simpleton and didn't even have the courage to say it directly to me.  OK. I can live with that. Most of us, myself included, don't wish to engage in petty goings-on via Twitter.  Still, I admit, it entertained me for 34.7 seconds (a generous estimate that includes the amount of time it took me to read the tweet and write my own.)

I told you that Stephen Williams is a member of Parliament. Didn't I?  I hope so. I just wanted to ensure everyone remembers that he's supposed to be a grown-up.

Right. So where was I?

Ah, yes.  This gormless MP, who believes that everything on the planet that he doesn't like is a Big Tobacco conspiracy, had a little more to say on the matter.  Except, Stephen Williams, like his one true fan in all of Britain, lacks the courage to say it to me directly. Indeed, this elected, respected, honourable member of Parliament insinuates that this blog's author and what I write is paid for by Big Tobacco companies.

So, there you have it. Stephen Williams MP has falsely accused me, without evidence -- and let's remember that this guy is a grown-up Minister of Parliament who should be above such unfounded accusations (ahem, ahem)  -- that I'm am a paid campaigner for the tobacco industry. 

Stephen Williams MP is wrong.  I'm not paid to write this blog. I'm not paid to have the views I hold, by anyone, and certainly not any tobacco companies.  I am just an ordinary person like any of you. No better than you, not special, not working for anybody ... just a guy who makes time to research and write about ignorant, petty bastards like Stephen Williams MP who represent Bristol West.

Because I want to do it.

Since Stephen Williams is the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, which is administered to by hate groups such as ASH, I can only logically conclude that, given the evidence, Stephen Williams is a delusional, paranoid, anti-smoker stooge of the tobacco control industry.

How about you prove me wrong, sir? Do you have the courage for that?  What say you? 

. . .

. . .

Yeah, that's what I thought.


** UPDATE:  Angela Harbutt has more on this at the Hands Off Our Packs blog. **

The Utter Desperation of Stephen Williams MP

Imagine for a moment that you're an elected member of Parliament, the chairman for the all-party group on smoking and health committee, and a feckless, parroting stooge for the tobacco control industry.  Your ultimate job is to whinge and moan about Big Tobacco's influence on all those gullible women and children (not to mention the poor and working class people you've been happily raping via tobacco duty for years) to your right honourable colleagues in Parliament so that you can enact legislation that destroys freedom and liberty.  It's a good gig, makes you feel all warm and glowy inside. You're convinced that you are doing good work! You've spent shed loads of taxpayer money on social media campaigns, billboards, and advertising on the side of London buses to support your illiberal views on plain packs. Now imagine you've been absolutely trumped -- no, that's not the right word ... Imagine you've been absolutely "pwned" by a magazine cover that all your fellow parliamentarians received.  How would you react?

Like this?

Image via prokit.co.uk

And then perhaps like this?

Image via hellogiggles.com

There, there little one. Let mummy Milton wipe those tears away and soothe you.

Once the screams echoing through the chambers of Parliament have subsided and the tears have dried from the rosy-red cheeks, your next action would be to pen a letter crying foul to the publisher of the magazine who dared to publish a paid advertisement against plain packs. You might demand a correction or a retraction of such an outrageous use of free speech. You would probably demand an apology. You would probably demand a right of reply. In the interest of being fair and balanced, that magazine of course would offer to allow you to present an opposing viewpoint, if only to shut you up.

And we suppose that is pretty much what happened, because Stephen Williams MP's response to the magazine advert appeared in the June 28th issue of The House magazine on page 15. Here are the first three paragraphs.

You may have noticed, two weeks ago, that the cover of House magazine was not adorned as usual with the face of a fellow MP. This is because Imperial Tobacco, a well resourced cigarette manufacturer based near my constituency in Bristol, had spent a large and undisclosed amount of money trying to convince readers that plain packaging of cigarettes is “bad for business, good for criminals”.

This is despite the fact that there is no evidence that plain packaging would lead to an increase in illicit tobacco. Tobacco packs are already easily counterfeited which is why the industry put covert markings on all tobacco packs. Plain packs may not have tobacco brand logos and colours but will retain the health warnings and other markings; they will be no easier to counterfeit.

The tobacco smuggling argument has been reinforced by claims that illicit tobacco is already spiralling out of control. In fact the market share of illicit cigarettes has halved over the last decade, from 21% of the market share to 10% according to the latest figures. This fall has been achieved by a tough anti-smuggling strategy. So why are tobacco companies, such as Imperial, spending so much money to stop plain packaging? They fear it will put off young people from buying their products, which is exactly what I and the Public Health Minister, Anne Milton, want.

Stephen Williams said, "This is despite the fact that there is no evidence that plain packaging would lead to an increase in illicit tobacco." This is what the tobacco control industry always says, but it's a statement without basis in fact, and Williams provides no evidence to support that assertion.  In other words, he is saying: "We say there's no evidence, so there must be no evidence."  In point of fact, there is plenty of evidence that plain packaging will lead to an increase in illicit and counterfeit tobacco products -- at least 50 MPs think it will. Even the police say it will. So who to believe? A ratbag politician who works for the tobacco control industry, or the police who see the illicit market first-hand?  I know who I'm going to believe in this instance.

Williams also said, "Tobacco packs are already easily counterfeited which is why the industry put covert markings on all tobacco packs."  The claim easily counterfeited is also untrue. Perhaps Williams missed this blog post. The packet designs that are counterfeited are always the most popular brands, and they rarely if ever attempt to counterfeit slim cigarettes. So criminals go to great lengths and expense to counterfeit the popular brands because it is worth it in the long run. The machinery that manufactures legitimate high-quality packaging is expensive -- too expensive for even the counterfeiters. So the counterfeiters use very old machines with a much lower-quality printing process. My research indicates that the difference between these printing processes provides the means for how HMRC and tobacco companies to determine whether a product is legitimate or fake. There are no covert markings -- there are production or manufacturing codes, but no special covert markings.  Stephen Williams lives in fairy tale world of magical covert manufacturing processes.  I doubt he has ever spoken to a packaging manufacturer.

Furthermore, Williams does not give an accurate picture of the illicit market for tobacco products. He cites only cigarettes.  He said, "In fact the market share of illicit cigarettes has halved over the last decade, from 21% of the market share to 10% according to the latest figures."  First this is an HMRC estimate and they admit they don't know the actual value, and their data show it could be as high as 20% (PDF). It is a mean average on estimates, to be fair. Yes, due to increased border checks and anti-smuggling strategies, smuggling and illicit non-UK duty paid tobacco has decreased (not a bad thing at all), but there are other factors to consider, like a weak pound against the euro or people not travelling as much as they used to. Moreover, Williams's statement neglects the illicit roll-your-own tobacco market, which HMRC estimates to be 49% of the UK market for hand-rolling smokers.  So Williams is not telling the whole truth. He's cherry picking the data that suits the agenda of tobacco control. This is what they always do. Ignore the truth, distort the facts.

Finally, Stephen Williams said, "So why are tobacco companies, such as Imperial, spending so much money to stop plain packaging?"

I'll answer that one. Because you and the tobacco control industry are openly trying to destroy businesses, including shopkeepers and retailers, which will in turn increase crime, not to mention further ostracising smokers at every opportunity. Who wouldn't fight against someone trying to destroy your legal business that is taxed higher than any other product sold? This plain packaging campaign is dressed up as a "protect the children" measure, but it really has nothing to do with children.  It's about demonising smokers for using a legal product that you don't like. It is yet another black-booted goose-step into the nanny state, a precursor to the plain packaging of anything that the health zealots deem unhealthy.  It is always about control.

Let's face facts. Stephen Williams MP got "pwned" big time by The House magazine cover. It embarrassed him and his campaign, and so it came to pass that out of desperation he wrote a response that makes him look like a whining, crying chump.  And that brings a substantial amount of joy to my life.

Brief Update on The House Plain Packs Cover

Last week I wrote a piece titled "What Moans May Come" in which I attempted to predict the tobacco control industry's response to The House magazine plain packs cover.  I regret that I didn't get all of my predictions right (for instance I haven't seen any press releases from CRUK or ASH), but some of it I did predict correctly. Well, as some musicians are fond of saying: it was close enough for jazz.

With a hat tip to the delightfully spoofy Tobacco Tactics account on Twitter, we now know via the University of Bath's tobacco tactics wiki that Stephen Williams MP fired off a letter to the publishers and moaned.  (I do not have a copy of that letter, nor do I have the response from the publisher, unfortunately.  If anyone does, please get in touch.)  It is curious that the only place this information appears is on the wiki. It is not on Williams's blog. It is not anywhere but on the wiki.  So we will have to take the wiki at face value and assume the information about the letter is correct. And because the wiki tends to change often, I've screen captured it as it stands now:

You can read the full wiki article here.

But I just love this line from the wiki:

By allowing Imperial Tobacco to include an ad such as this, The House magazine has enabled Imperial Tobacco to promote its anti-plain packaging agenda to the readership of The House, i.e. MPs.

This is how the tobacco control industry thinks and acts.  They believe that only they are allowed to promote their agendas of hate against smokers and those who would support the cause of liberty. Anyone else who disagrees with them and their tactics must not be heard from, and anyone who dares speak to speak out against tobacco control must be shouted down as stooges for Big Tobacco.  That strikes me as evil and totalitarian.

This is the bit about the letter that our very first Super Twat of the Month wrote to the publisher:

MP Stephen Williams wrote a letter to The House magazine, which suggested that a disclaimer should have been more prominently placed on the magazine cover and questioned why such a misleading advertorial was permitted in the publication at all, given that tobacco industry advertising is illegal in the UK. Gerry Murray, a publisher of The House magazine defended the inclusion such an advertisement by saying "Neither House magazine nor Dods operates a discriminative policy on who can and who cannot insert advocacy messages in the magazine. If they are within the laws of the land and the principles of common decency, in the interests of free speech we do not censor these messages. Whatever our personal views on smoking we cannot in all fairness exclude the tobacco lobby from the pages of the magazine. There lies a road to perdition, where would one stop?" 

Indeed, where would one stop on this road to perdition?

Furthermore, Stephen Williams MP could not resist a jab about the cover during a committee's discussion on clause 185 of the Finance bill in respect of duty on tobacco products.  Funnily enough, MP Peter Bone essentially told Williams to get stuffed for being off-topic, and then Williams was silent for the rest of the meeting.  I like to imagine Williams sulking like a three-year-old who just had his lolly taken away.  Have a look:

So that's the update. It's early days however. We might see more from the tobacco control industry regarding this. We might not.  Again, if anyone has these copies of these letters between the publisher and Williams, please get in touch. For now, it seems only Bath University has access to the letters.

How to Spot Another ASH Stooge

I am always sceptical when I see a pro-plain packs piece written by an independent retailer.  It's not that I believe every independent retailer is against plain packaging of cigarettes and tobacco products, because there must be a few who truly believe plain packs are a good idea. No, the reason I become sceptical is because I find it difficult to believe that a retailer would bother to write a lengthy opinion piece in support of tobacco control if perhaps he was not working for tobacco control in some capacity.

Enter Gateshead's LibDem Councillor John McClurey, who is also a shopkeeper of the Greentree News in  Newcastle upon Tyne, and whose opinion piece supporting plain packs appears at the politics.co.uk web site here.  McClurey writes:

In the three decades I have been selling tobacco, attitudes towards smoking have done a dramatic about-turn. [...] That’s why I feel it’s so important to present a balanced view on the subject of plain packaging, and lay to rest some of the scare tactics the tobacco industry is unfairly presenting to my colleagues in the trade.

Hold up a second. He's been selling tobacco for thirty years. Let's think about that for just a moment. He has profited by selling cigarettes in a shop for at least thirty years.  In a "personal communication" to ASH he told them that he makes about up to 5% profit on a packet of 20s (see PDF page 17 (reference no. 11) and page 7).  What he and ASH doesn't mention is that A) these are probably the pre-priced packs (PMPs) for the value-for-money brands like Pall Mall, and B) how much profit he makes from selling roll-your-own tobacco and other smokers' articles, which is surely a higher percentage, but never mind that.  At present market rates of roughly £7 per pack, using his 5% figure he makes about 35p per packet. That is not a huge amount, but then we don't know how much he sells every day. Let us suppose then:

If he sells only 50 packets per day (a very low figure, admittedly, considering he also says tobacco sales comprise 1/3 of a small retailer's turnover -- see above PDF -- and considering the area where is shop is located), he has made £17.50 for doing almost nothing except for stocking packets and ringing up the purchases.  If his shop is open 7 days per week and he consistently sells on average 50 packets per day, then he makes £122 profit per week.  The take for one month at this rate is about £490, and for a year it is £5,880.

Not bad. Not bad. But those figures are not remotely accurate. The truth is, retailers actually have a much higher margin for the popular brands like Marlboro Lights or any brand that is not pre-priced.  Behold a Spar retailer's profit margin (note, this is the article that ASH cited in their PDF -- and do note how they completely cherry-picked and distorted the figures in their document to suit their agenda):

Paul’s top-selling cigarette brand is Marlboro Lights, which he sells with a 13% margin at £6.82, helping him to make a 76p profit on a pack of 20.

Really? 13%? That's more than double McClure's dodgy figure that ASH weaselled out of him. Let's redo the maths, again using the very low sales figure of 50 packets of 20s per day. 

50 packets per day = £38 profit.
One week = £266
One month = £1,064
One year = £12,768


So you can see why it's worthwhile to sell cigarettes even at small volumes, which is why John McClurey has been doing it for 30 years, and why he continues do to so despite his personal feelings about tobacco and the allure of trade marks on a packet. The margins may be small in comparison to luxury items and some foods, but selling smokes is definitely profitable for any retailer.  It is a no-brainer. More important than that is understanding what your customers want to buy when they come to your shop. McClurey's customers clearly want to buy cigarettes, which is why he sells them. Being an independent retailer, McClurey has a choice, however.  He could choose not to sell cigarettes. If he believed so strongly that tobacco is bad for the community, if he truly believed that then why does he continue to sell cigarettes and tobacco?  McClurey is the ultimate hypocrite (thanks to Pat Nurse for pointing that out on Twitter).  I suppose it's easy to see why he's attracted to politics then.

So what else does he have to say in his opinion piece?

Earlier this year I presented these arguments to the all party parliamentary group on smoking and health. My views have made me unpopular with some of my colleagues [...]

No fucking shit, Sherlock. That's because you're not telling the whole truth and your actions are likely to make your competitors lose money. They know it to be true. You're an ASH stooge, evidently.  How do we know that?  Well, because you appear in numerous ASH anti-tobacco publications.

Like this one, for instance:

But former North of England President of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, John McClurey, has described information circulated by the tobacco industry as "scare tactics". McClurey has been to Ireland where a display ban has been in place since July 2009.

McClurey said:  “I was amazed at how enthusiastic Irish retailers were. Complying with the legislation had not been expensive and sales to adults haven’t been affected. These displays aren’t really aimed at existing smokers; after all nine out of ten smokers know what brand they want before they come in and the rest will make their decision largely on price.”

You live in Gateshead. What the hell are you doing in Ireland dealing with Irish retailers in the first place? How did you get there? Did someone pay for that trip for you?  Questions, questions...

Or how about this one:

Retailer John McClurey commented: “We are always under pressure from the [tobacco] industry reps to broaden our range of stock and try out new products. This means we’re often required to stock products that we wouldn’t otherwise choose to hold. It’s the industry rather than our customers who determine what’s on sale.”

Funny how ASH keep coming back to you. Are there no other retailers about they could ask? Is it because you are also a politician that they come to you for quotes?

Here's another ASH publication with even blog favourite stooge and fellow LibDem Stephen Williams MP mentioning you in respect of plain packs and display ban:

The latter is a necessary measure to help prevent children becoming smokers, which, as local shopkeeper John McClurey says in this issue, will not be difficult for retailers to implement.

And here's a screen cap your piece in that very same ASH publication -- lovely pic by the way, you look dashing, sir:

Oh, look! You've been to Guernsey, too?

SHOPKEEPERS must move with the times, according to one retailer who supports the ban on displaying tobacco.

John McClurey (pictured) was in Guernsey last night to give a presentation to local tobacco retailers and States members.

Presentation, huh?  In Guernsey?  And you're not even the president of the retailers group any longer. Nice work if you can get it. Who paid for that trip to Guernsey? How'd you get there?

Here's a letter you wrote to the Guardian:

Professor Ann McNeill suggests that removing tobacco displays will reduce youth smoking in the long term without harming small shops in the short term (Research notes, 11 January). I am a small shopkeeper myself. I've been to Ireland and spoken to retailers there and I think she's right. It will make it a little easier for smokers to quit and a little less likely for young people to start. The big tobacco companies have been trying to convince people like me to campaign against the new law on their behalf. It is the oldest dirty trick in the book. Let's hope the coalition don't fall for it.

John McClurey, Gateshead

Here's one from the Huddersfield Examiner (and I note your "colleagues" completely disagree with your view):

But John McClurey, former North of England President of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, described information circulated by the tobacco industry as “scare tactics”.

Mr McClurey said he had been to Ireland where a display ban had been in place since July 2009.
He said: “I was amazed at how enthusiastic Irish retailers were.

“Complying with the legislation had not been expensive and sales to adults haven’t been affected.

“Displays aren’t really aimed at existing smokers – after all nine out of ten smokers know what brand they want before they come in and the rest will make their decision largely on price.”

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) said international evidence showed that smuggling did not increase following a cigarette display ban.

For a little retailer, you sure do get around. But it's not just ASH you work for, you got your grubby little mitts in with FRESH too:

Gateshead shopkeeper John McClurey, who has spent 28 years selling cigarettes from his North East store, said: “In my experience smokers see lighter colours as somehow being less toxic. I have certainly been aware of customers considering this type of cigarette as a way of cutting down.

“Health should always come before profits and that is why I am increasingly uncomfortable with children coming in every day and seeing these brightly coloured packets on the shelves.”

But councillor McClurey, if health should come before profits, as you are so keen to point out, why then are you still selling tobacco? Because you're hyperhypocritical, that's why.

Well, I could go on, because there are several dozen more articles mentioning you in respect of tobacco products and it's no wonder you are no longer the president of that retailers association. Maybe they thought you did not represent them adequately?  I dunno.

But there's one last recent article that I believe, in my opinion of course, describes your character quite well. Here you were forced to apologise for liking a Facebook page called "chavs are freaks, throw stones at them":

A COUNCILLOR has been accused of demonising young people after supporting a Facebook page that implores people to ‘stone chavs’. [...] The page called ‘chavs are freaks, throw stones at them’ has more than 3,600 fans, which until this week included the Gateshead shopkeeper and former North of England President of the Newsagents Federation.

Really, now. Didn't know how it worked, did you? Love that excuse by the way. Didn't know what the word "Like" means, so you clicked it. That's an easy mistake I suppose. Like.  It's a difficult word.  Or...  Oops! You got caught out hating, mate.  Pop quiz: So, what's the difference between demonising smokers and demonising the kids from working class families?  None! It's still demonising people, dickhead! Everybody who smokes is probably a chav worthy of being stoned. Is that right? These very same people who come into your shop and buy the goods you sell -- tell us, do you pity them when you hand over a packet of Silk Cut or B&H? Despise them? How do you feel about your customers, McClurey? Do tell. How do you feel?

Because I have a feeling, sir, that given your history and viewpoints you are going to do very, very well in politics.  I do, indeed.  You will make for a fine Super Twat of the Month someday.  In the meantime, maybe one of my readers who runs a business can explain if having liabilities of £74,000 is a good or bad thing.

I also suppose that working for the tobacco control industry is quite profitable under the right circumstances, certainly when business is a bit slow. It is always about money after all. Perhaps Councillor John McClurey would like to give us some tips on how we can get in on this cash cow. We are all ears, buddy. All ears...

What Moans May Come

In reference to Simon Clark's latest post, I've known about The House Magazine's cover advertisement for a few days now since I saw it on Twitter.  I saw relatively few tweets about it.  I did see CRUK wasn't best pleased with it after someone complained to them about it. I have no idea who paid for and commissioned this advertisement, but this was an enormous coup for the opponents of plain packs, particularly if it rankled Stephen Williams MP as Simon suggests it may have.

Despite this coup, I don't need a crystal ball to tell me how the story will go after this.  Every anti-smoker group (CRUK, ASH, FRESH, etc.) will issue press releases or do interviews claiming that tobacco companies or those naughty groups funded by tobacco companies are attempting to influence public health policy by lobbying and advertising directly to politicians. They will claim it is outrageous, and that it's lies. They will deny that their policies could increase the illicit tobacco market. They will claim the magazine cover is somehow in violation of the FCTC. They will complain to the magazine publisher. They will cry and moan and say how unfair it is. The usual tobacco control lackeys (aka health columnists) working in the press will run the story (and if we're really lucky we'll see a rerun of the Big Tobacco intimidation tactics story and that this cover is evidence of Big T's intimidation of politicians).  It will all be tweeted on Twitter as further evidence that we need plain packs mostly by CRUK's volunteer ambassador morons wearing paper bags.

Or maybe not. I could be wrong. Perhaps I am this time. I can live with that.

Super Twat of the Month - April 2012

Introduction

Each month this blog will choose one person or an organisation to be our Super Twat of the Month.  Our STOTM will normally be a public figure who is an anti-smoker activist and/or someone who is trashing (or attempting to trash) our civil liberties in support of a Nanny or Surveillance State.  If this blog had to have only one motto, it would be "Educate, Don't Legislate."  STOTMs want to legislate your lifestyles away. The people we choose to be STOTMs often claim to be in support of civil liberties, but in reality they only want liberties to be applied to the causes or groups of people they identify with.  Here we call them out for their hypocrisy.  We are not so naive that we believe this blog will have any impact on their decisions, but we can hope. 

Super Twat of the Month - April 2012

April's STOTM is Stephen Williams MP, representing Bristol West in Parliament.

The Good

When I look over Williams's curriculum vitae and key issues, at first glance it seems to me that he and I would get along famously.  We agree on enough things that, under different circumstances, I would not hesitate to invite him over for dinner, a drink and have a chat about life and the latest PS3 games.  Let's break it down:

• Parliamentary Reform - check!
• Pro-Immigration - check!
• Anti-violence (against women, particularly, but I'm anti-violence against anyone... unless they are attacking me of course) - check!
• Same-sex Marriage - check! Because honestly, who you love and want to marry is your business and no one else's.
• The  Right to Protest - check!
• Against Capital Punishment - check!
• Libel Reform - check!
• Abolition of Council Tax - check!
• Against ID cards - check!

And there are a few others, but the point is that I can find some common ground with this man.  I don't agree with all of his views, and I doubt anyone does.  But I can imagine a spirited, friendly, robust debate on our disagreements over the course of an evening with a few glasses of wine or beer, and maybe a nice brandy for a nightcap.  If it were to happen at my home, he would be quite safe from our smoking habits, since we do not smoke in most of the house -- we have a designated smoking conservatory.  (Back in the Georgian and Victorian eras, people had "smoking rooms" sometimes called drawing rooms, or what have you.)  It's our "sin bin" if you will.

The Bad

• Anti-Smoker and Anti-Tobacco, supports Plain Packaging
• Wants Government to Protect Your Children
• Believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change
• Wants Government to Interfere in Private Business and Schools

Of course there is more, but I'm worried I'm going to lose your attention, so I'll just keep the bad to the list above.  So if we did have Williams over for dinner, I would like to challenge him on the above.  I don't know if I would win or even persuade him to change his views.  I think it unlikely.  If I could do one thing, however, it would be to help him see a different perspective.

Hypocrisy

I didn't know that Stephen Williams is gay until a couple of days ago when I read it on Wikipedia.  His sexuality is his business, and like racism I don't truck with homophobic viewpoints -- neither will be tolerated on this blog.  Bigotry is hate, plain and simple, regardless of whether it is against race, gender, sexuality, and nationality.  It's good to know that the Williams is championing equality for the GLBT crowd.  Even in central London, that bastion of acceptance and tolerance (ahem), I have witnessed some truly vile people attacking my gay, lesbian and transgendered friends simply for being gay.  I agree with Williams in that we need to better educate people that hating gay people is uncivilised and moronic.  So, Williams is gay.  Big deal.

And yet, here's the thing, Stephen.  Gay people have been an oppressed group of people for a really long time.  I'm quite certain you've experienced it.  It's awful.  It should never happen, but people are stupid and ignorant and they always will be.  Progress is indeed being made, as even you have said, but there's a long way to go still.  So why am I going to make an issue of your sexuality here and call you out as a hypocrite?  Because -- and I know you're going to think it's a stretch given your views -- but smokers are the new oppressed people, we are the new gay and lesbian targets.  That's right. Smokers (as well as fat people and drinkers) are being demonised by those who think their viewpoints are more important than ours.  And you, sir, are one of those people.  I know what you're thinking, but please bear with me, I'm still making my point.

Here, I'll put it another way for you.  Whenever an oppressed people rise up and gain power of their oppressors, the formerly-oppressed exact their own oppression against those who had oppressed them.  It's retaliatory, sure.  Iraq - Sunnis vs Shiites, etc.  An endless list of revenge I could write.  This happens all the time.  It doesn't make it right.  So, you, Stephen, you know exactly what it feels like to be hated by people for doing nothing more than living your life the way you believe you should, for being who you are.  Why then, knowing this as intimately as you do, would you do the very same thing to people who smoke?

Hate is Hate is Hate is Hate, Regardless

Do you not see it for what it is, this thing you're doing?  It's hate.  It's oppression. You are using your hatred of smoking, of tobacco, of smokers to oppress smokers, by making it more difficult for adults to consume a legal product.  It is no different than hating people simply because they are gay.

Ah, I wrote that I knew what you were thinking, so I'll address that here.  You're thinking that smokers can choose whether to smoke, but gay people cannot choose to be gay.  Indeed, some people are born gay.  Maybe we all are, because just about every "straight guy" I know has been with another guy at some point in their life, or if they haven't then they have definitely thought about it.  A quick visit to the M4M personal ads on Craigslist can confirm that.  You and I know both know that people can choose their sexuality, if they want to.  Sexuality can be very fluid, given the right circumstances.  Everyone has a choice.  It's called free will.  We can all choose who our sexual partners will be.

What we cannot choose is who we will fall in love with (well, we can choose that, too, I suppose, but I consider myself a romantic, you see). Let me tell you something, I fell in love with smoking. I love watching people smoke, seeing the smoke tendrils curl in the air.  It's not even about nicotine most of the time.  I just love smoking.  It's how I was born, I guess.  I love smoking a cigarette, having the occasional expensive cigar with a brandy, and I love the smell of pipe tobacco, although I don't smoke a pipe.  Nobody convinced me to start smoking, it was a decision I made. Nobody forced me to do it.  I wasn't gullible.  I knew the risks of smoking before I ever smoked one cigarette.  The pack design didn't matter.  It was the act of smoking.  I have quit a few times in the past, and I missed it so much that it made me miserable and hateful.  My friends, who didn't smoke, asked me to start smoking again. Can you believe that?  They said, please start smoking again or we will kill you.  I wasn't happy.  Smoking makes me happy.  Seriously, it does.

And who the fuck are you to deny anyone of being happy?  Would you like it if someone kept you from being happy?  You don't like smoking?  Great. Good for you. Don't smoke.  You don't like being around smokers?  Fine, done be around them.  You want to protect the children? Fine, go have some kids and protect them, but stop having the government do the job of parents.  And stop bullshitting us with this "plain packs protect children" crap when you know it's complete bollocks.  It's petty revenge against tobacco companies and smokers, because you hate them.  Just like homophobes hate you.  You wouldn't tolerate racism or homophobia, would you?

Oh, but smoking kills, you say.   "It's the only product--"  No it isn't. Not even by a long shot, but if you want to justify your position with that then fine, I'll come up with list of products that kill. Whatever.  Lots of things will kill us.  But here it is, Stephen.  You ready? Hey, hey... wake up!  Stephen, life kills.  All of us.  We are all going to die.  All of us.  No exceptions. All of us will die.  (They're all dead, Dave.  Kochanski?  Yes, Dave.)  It will be tragic for each and every one of us when we do depart, no matter how we die.  That's the point of life.  This entire planet will die in the future.  The entire universe will die.  Why fear it?  Why pretend it won't happen?  It's going to happen. It's unavoidable.  No one and nothing will life forever.

What? Do you think that dying of liver disease, or viral pneumonia because your body is too old to fight it off, is somehow more acceptable than lung cancer?  It's still death.  The really sad thing is that we as a society in the UK refuse to let people choose the manner of their deaths when they do get ill.  No one has to "die from cancer."  We could let those people end their lives with a little dignity if we were truly humane beings.  Dignity.

In Closing

So, you think about that.  Dignity.  Hypocrisy.  I would propose that you consider that smokers are people; that parents are capable of protecting and teaching their own children; that any laws on tobacco are just as illiberal as ID cards, and everything else you believe in -- we will deal with AGW some other day.  Because until you realise that to be a true civil libertarian means that you don't get to pick and choose who gets liberties and who doesn't, then you're a twat.

You are our Super Twat of the Month.  Congratulations.