Quotes From a Study on NRT and Harm Reduction

In the tobacco control industry, the bar for what constitutes research or a study appears to be set rather low. Take twenty stakeholders in tobacco control and Big Pharma, and ask them what they think about nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and nicotine-containing products (NCPs), and voila, you have a "qualitative study."  That is not to say the study is not useful. Indeed, it's a wonderful insight into the perceptions of the key players in the tobacco control industry.  I think the authors may come to regret publishing it.

The study I have referred to above is titled:  Regulatory Issues Concerning the Development and Circulation of Nicotine- Containing Products: A Qualitative Study.  It was co-authored by Catriona Rooke, Ann McNeill, and Deborah Arnott, and published on-line by the Oxford Press at the Oxford Journals Nicotine & Tobacco Research web page on 5 November 2012.

Here is a capture of the abstract, and honestly, you will know all that you need to know just by reading only the abstract:

Source: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/11/03/ntr.nts235.abstract

So I have read the entire paper, and I'm totally not surprised. It's a doozy. My take on the whole affair is that the tobacco control industry -- even after 50+ years of doggedly demonising people who smoke and trying to get them to quit -- still does not understand smokers and the reasons why people smoke. Certainly, some people smoke purely for the pleasures of nicotine in their bodies -- some of those people may have proper nicotine addictions. Yet this is only but one factor to consider when exploring the reasons why people smoke. They don't get it at all -- they see nicotine as the end-all experience of smoking, but they're just missing the point (albeit, they do mention in the study that there is more to consider, such as "is it inhaling the smoke?").

Before I delve into and write further about the study above, I'm going to do the tobacco control industry a huge favour. I'm going to help you morons understand why people smoke. An important caveat, however: this is not all-encompassing. Because the reasons why people smoke are far too numerous to list them all, and each person is a unique individual.  What follows are generalisations.

Smoking for many is a ritual. It's a habit. An extremely enjoyable habit with a host of factors at play. Each person's habit is uniquely their own. For instance, setting down knife and fork when finished with a meal and lighting up a cigarette or cigar immediately thereafter is one of the most pleasurable times to smoke.  But it goes deeper than even that.  It's the act of smoking, inhaling deeply or shallowly per one's preference, and in my case, exhaling the smoke is a huge part of the pleasure of smoking. I love the act of smoking. And I love to watch people smoke, because everybody does it a little differently. Absolutely fascinating to observe someone's smoking style, as it were.

Going even deeper, for those who smoke tailor-mades (machine-made cigarettes), the ritual could start with "packing" the packet -- tapping it several times on a table or your palm, then peeling off the cellophane strip, opening the flip-top box, carefully removing the foil, and for the true connoisseurs of packet opening, inhaling the gloriously tempting odours of your freshly-opened packet of cigarettes, all before finally teasing a cigarette from the packet and lighting it.  That first draw, the warmth of it, the slow exhalation... all of it, together, forms the ritual.

For those who roll their own cigarettes, the ritual is different but equally important.  The paper choice, the filter (if used), opening the tobacco pouch and inhaling the scent of your tobacco, pinching a portion of tobacco from the pouch, separating it and carefully distributing the tobacco evenly along the length of the paper, capturing any bits that may have escaped and returning it to the pouch, rolling the paper up, gently licking the the paper, sealing it with a slow and precise motion, tapping the freshly-rolled cigarette on a table or a the flat side of a lighter, removing any loose strands from the tip, and finally, satisfied with your rolling efforts, placing the cigarette into your mouth and lighting it.

It's the whole act -- the ritual that keeps people smoking, and if one element of the ritual is broken, the others suffice or a new element is added. Smokers adapt to their environments, and the elements of the ritual are not inextricably linked. We use different rituals for each environment, and if you take away one from us, we take our rituals to the next environment. You cannot stop that. You cannot change that. There is nothing you can do about it, no matter how hard you try.  You are running a fool's errand by attempting to legislate a person's lifestyle choice.

Let's take it one step further.  For some, it's not just the act of smoking, it is (certainly in these times with display bans and high taxes) the act of obtaining your cigarettes or tobacco.  Indeed, the one thing that the tobacco control industry has consistently failed to understand over all of these years is this one very important thing:

The more difficult something is to obtain, the greater the reward one receives for merely obtaining it.

That is a fact.

Make something harder to get, and the person who does get it feels a greater sense of satisfaction from his or her efforts.  Make it more expensive, and the person who buys it feels a greater sense of pleasure from obtaining it, like any luxury product.  It's like art.  Most paintings are beautiful eye-candy, but the one that cost you £25,000 -- that one is very special, far more special than the glossy print you bought for £10 from Asda.  But if tobacco becomes too expensive, some buyers will seek out alternative illegal sources, and a new pleasure mechanism takes root for purchasing illicit goods. Could there be any greater pleasure than giving the government and its minions in Public Health two fingers by depriving them of the duty they all so desperately need to fund their careers?  So all of the tobacco control industry's efforts at making cigarettes unobtainable are having an opposite effect on those who seek out tobacco products.

Think about it, you insipid, prohibitionist morons in tobacco control.  Think for just five seconds about the children who are unable to legally buy cigarettes.  What sort of reward might they feel when they are able to get a hold of a sneaky cigarette or a whole packet that had been legally denied to them?  Nobody is saying we should give cigarettes to kids. I'm simply asking you to think about the rewarding feeling one gets from obtaining the unobtainable.

It's bloody magic, is what that feeling is. When I was a kid... oh, yeah, just getting the cigarettes added to the delight and ritual of smoking.  Oh, those were days! I remember being disappointed when I was finally of legal age.  Same for alcohol, come to think of it.  The mystique, the wonder, the magical pleasures of merely obtaining my vices, had faded. But the other rituals, these remained.

But you don't get it, tobacco controllers. Because all you see is nicotine-induced misery in a cigarette. You see only a cancerous death as the end result of a person's decision to smoke. This pseudo-religious belief blinds you from the realities of why people do what they do. You are so hell-bent on saving everyone from themselves that you fail to see the obvious: everything you do and have done will save no one who does not wished to be saved.  Each person must save themselves, and it is their own choice to do so or not. You are fooling yourselves if you honestly believe in your cause.

So let's go back to the study.  Let's look into the minds of the tobacco control industry's key players and see what they really think about their place in the world.  Fair use prevents me from using very much of the study, so I'm going to use two select quotes only for the dual purpose of educating my readers and for criticism.

The first quote validates everything people have been saying about Big Pharma's influence in the anti-smoking movement:

This is really the heart of the matter, isn't it?  It's about competition, and the hoops one industry must jump through compared to another. It's like a school yard politics, or perhaps squabbling siblings.  "If Liam doesn't have to do it, why should I have to? It's so unfair, mum!"   But one key thing to note in that passage above is that it's about "control."  Big Pharma hates that e-cigarette companies are not under the same controls that pharma companies are.  So Big Pharma is aggressively lobbying everyone in governments all over the world to shut down the e-cig companies, or failing that, to put them on the same playing field as pharma companies.

This isn't about health. This has nothing to do with health. IT HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT HEALTH! It's about money, and who is allowed to make money.  And if you cannot stop your competitors from making money by using politicians to pass laws to shut those companies down, then you can sure as hell make it as difficult as possible for your competitors to make money.  That's Big Pharma's role in the NCP market.  They know that their NRT products fail to satisfy the ritual of smoking.  A nicotine patch is no patch at all on the pleasures of smoking. The inhalers taste awful and are nothing at all like the deliciousness of a full-flavoured cigarette with a cup of coffee, or a pint of bitter.  Despite Big Pharma's best intentions, nobody gets addicted to NRT products, because they suck. And if nicotine were so addictive as the anti-smokers claim, then why aren't people addicted to NRT?  Because it's the ritual of smoking that forms the pleasurable habit. It's not just about nicotine.

And those simple facts makes Big Pharma extremely jealous of e-cigarette companies, who are several orders of magnitude closer to the ritual of smoking than any NRT product could ever achieve. It grates at Big Pharma, annoys them, like an unseen mosquito buzzing away in a dark bedroom on a warm late-summer evening. You know it's there, and you know it wants to bite you. It senses your breath and hones in on you, goes quiet and lands on you. You feel nothing until after it's already bitten you and ingested a quantity of your blood. It flies away, unscathed, pleased and thrilled from engorging itself. And you, Big Pharma, are left with an itchy, stinging sore that keeps you awake for hours, and scratching barely provides any relief.

For the final confirmation that Big Pharma is in the nicotine supply business and ultimately sees Big Tobacco as its direct competitor (along with anyone who supplies NCPs), here's one last quote from the study.

The jig is up. You tell me who is more honest about what they sell.  Big Pharma, or Big Tobacco?  One is trying to save you from yourself by selling you products that do not work as they claim.  The other is trying to sell you a product that you already want to buy, a product that you are already aware comes with health risks for using.

Do read the whole study. You may need to register to get access.  Come to your own conclusions about what you read.  And note, I have barely scratched the surface of what's in this paper. I could probably write 20 blog posts about it.  

But I've made my point. And I rest my case.

I, Drone (Special Cannabis Edition)

If the name Daniel Clayton doesn't ring any tobacco control industry bells, do not be concerned.  In comparison to the Root of All Evil, The Dreadful, Anna Gilmore, Stanton Glantz, or other well-known tobacco control industry names, nobody would consider to list Daniel Clayton among them. He used to work for ASH Wales as their Youth Health Specialist (which is, in my humble opinion, more than bit frightening that people like this have had access to our kids, especially after you've read through the contents of his tweet history), before moving on to some other Public Health job in Cardiff. He's nobody, really. It would be difficult to even class him as a "useful idiot."  No, do not be alarmed if you've not heard about this rugby-loving, fan of Pink Floyd, and generally mouthy prohibitionist before; he is just another one of Public Health's True Believers, blindly following and parroting whatever propaganda the tobacco control industry machine can produce.

Mr Daniel Clayton
There is a YouTube vid of him here, but I don't recommend watching it

But I bring him up today because Daniel Clayton likes to tweet absurdities on a regular basis. In other words, his moronic and often overtly socialist and sometimes communistic tweets entertain me.  Indeed, it was enormously entertaining to see him get all worked up over a union asking it members to oppose plain packaging.  In his mind, unions are socialist "for the greater public good" constructs, much like he views the whole of the NHS and every other taxpayer-funded group you can think of, and therefore unions should also toe the tobacco control line. But when unions don't toe the line, Daniel Clayton does not forget nor forgive.  He's kind of like a little terrier set loose from its lead, padding through the estate, nipping at the ankles of the postman who dares to stray into the little mutt's territory:  Harmless? Not too bright? A nuisance, perhaps? Well, it's amusing to me.

I could go on, but I'll get to the point.  Mr Clayton posted this tweet today:

Now, OK, think about this for a moment.  Mr Clayton isn't sure whether cannabis should be legalised, but if it is made legal, so long as people who smoke weed don't use tobacco in their spliffs, then that's fine by him.  You see, in his view, only the evil tobacco plant kills people. Or perhaps his view is simpler than that: Tobacco companies kill people.  It should be noted that Mr Clayton does not like capitalism, big business, or indeed much of anything but socialised taxpayer-funded quangos and government bodies.  But the above tweet is absurd in its hypocrisy, and I point it out today because it illustrates the next big movement in the tobacco control industry.

The tobacco control industry won't necessarily come out in support of cannabis use, but they will aggressively campaign for people to smoke their weed without using tobacco.  If you're in America, this is no big deal.  Most pot-smoking Americans smoke a J neat -- that is, no tobacco is used when rolling it up.  Bong lovers do not use tobacco either, and of course the ever favourite easy-to-carry pot pipe is also smoked with only cannabis in the bowl ... in the States.  But here in the UK and within Europe, a lot of cannabis smokers prefer to roll up a fatty with a bit of tobacco mixed in.  Every culture and region goes about smoking cannabis their own way.

But shame on you Europeans and Britons who use tobacco whilst getting high! The tobacco control industry does not approve! Don't you realise that the magical tobacco plant is a billion times more dangerous than cannabis?  Does it not matter to you that that very same potentially cancer-causing chemicals present in tobacco smoke are also present in cannabis smoke? You may as well give up cooking food and attending bonfire parties or enjoying the warmth of a log-burning fireplace.  The same potentially cancer-causing chemical constituents of any burning plant material are present in all of these things. The same ones. Including cannabis.

The tobacco control industry won't tell you that. Their agenda is to destroy tobacco companies and make smokers' lives as miserable as possible in the process. So if you mix tobacco in with your spliff, you are funding the tobacco industry, and they do not like it one bit.

It's not about health. It's about controlling your  choices whilst promoting their agenda against an industry they do not like.  Daniel Clayton cannot see the wood for the trees. He is blinded by the tobacco control industry's hateful campaigns against consumers of tobacco products and the companies and farmers who supply the consumers.  Destroy them all, no matter the costs to society.

I can only imagine a similar fate happening to a legal Big Cannabis industry, should something like that ever occur.

Just so we're all clear about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to smoking cannabis, a demonstration using pictures for your viewing pleasure:

This is fine:

Rolling a fatty neat - no tobacco

This is also [extremely] fine:

Hitting a bong, whilst naked and wearing only stockings is acceptable behaviour - no tobacco
Propane torch, optional

This is completely unacceptable:

Rolling a spliff with hand rolling tobacco -- this is very, very bad

And this is also right out:

Rolling a spliff with tobacco from a cigarette is also very bad

Update: Thanks to DP for the link to the ASH 2012 conference tweet (see comments).

Don't Nudge Me, Bro

I admit I haven't processed this fully, meaning I'm uncertain how I feel about this thing called "Nudge Theory."  From Australia's Radio National Sunday Extra page, where I found it:

Governments everywhere use carrots and sticks to discourage anti-social behaviour. For example, discouraging smoking by making it expensive, restricting advertising and limiting where you can smoke.

But what about nudging citizens to make good choices? Can a government gently push us to pay our taxes or lose weight?

The UK is so impressed by this idea that PM David Cameron has set up a 'behavioural insight unit', and a senior member of the unit is heading over here to teach the NSW government to use nudge theory.

(Quick aside: I'm racking my brain here trying to recall anything about Cameron's Behavioural Insight Unit. Bejeesus, that sounds Orwellian to me.  Did I know about it before today?  Did I choose to forget? Was I out of the country that day?  WTF? [over])

Here is an audio interview about nudge theory with Richard Thaler, who is one of the "fathers" of this concept. It's under 10 minutes in length.

OK, so if I got this right, Richard Thaler's nudge theory means don't try to force people to change, instead nudge them in the right direction of the change you want. People who want to change, e.g. smokers who want to quit, will be better served by a nudge; and those who don't want to quit the nudge won't be of any benefit. It's a fascinating concept.  I find it fascinating because I am utterly used to being bludgeoned to near-death by our government's relentless assault on smokers, drinkers and chubby folk, as well as anything else that the Public Health minions deem necessary for our personal survival.

But in respect of plain packaging and our UK government's tendency to pass laws against the will of the public, I have to wonder:  Are plain packs a nudge or are they a heavy hammer blow to the face? Because plain packaging is also a theory. It's unproven. None of the tobacco control industry's overtly-biased studies prove conclusively that plain packaging will work to reduce smoking rates.

Indeed, I just read this plain packaging in Australia article from the Sugar Free Products web site [What? You don't think the sugar industry is concerned about plain packaging? No slippery slope, no domino effect to other industries? Please. We all know what's coming. So does the sugar industry, and the drinks industry, and every other "villainous" soon-to-be-a-pariah-industry out there.] which reads (emphasis added):

The introduction of plain packaging on tobacco products is expected to have mixed results for the industry, Burgio-Ficca adds. While it is expected that the short-term effect of plain packaging will be minimal, it is hoped that the new packaging will have a long-term effect by reducing the appeal of smoking to younger consumers.

Tobacconists and other specialised grocery retailers are forecast to achieve modest growth over the next five years. The introduction of plain packaging on tobacco products from 1 December 2012 will have a minimal effect on cigarette sales, though the industry may be affected by a rise in demand for cigarettes on the black market as all packets will look the same and will be easier to copy.

You see, it is not known what plain packaging will do, except that pretty much everyone outside of the tobacco control industry agrees that plain packs will enhance and increase the illicit and counterfeit markets. The tobacco control industry knows it will happen, yet they steadfastly maintain that counterfeit cigarettes are not harmful, i.e. "smoke 'em if you get 'em... and die, smoker."  Jerks.

Back to Thaler's nudge theory. On the surface, I'm fairly certain that I have no issues with a gentle nudge in the right direction. It doesn't take away my ability to make the choice. It may be leading me to make a certain choice, but my few remaining brain cells can override the nudge and I can still do whatever suits me. As a theory, it's pretty benign in its implementation, and it seems honest in its approach to guide people to do whatever the supposedly "right thing" may be.

Yet I also worry that the psychological aspect of "nudge" could be horrifically abused by governments (and fake charities) by exploiting a person's potential guilt for the gain of a particular cause or campaign.  CRUK's plain packs video using children comes to mind. That video is designed to make you feel something for the children, to turn off your ability to reason and think about what you are actually seeing, and to respond accordingly against adult consumers of tobacco products.  All because you were "nudged" in the direction of "protect the children." Hell, you weren't even nudged. You were thrown to the floor and stomped on. But that's all right. Anything is worth it for the children. A steel-toed boot kick in the face is akin to a nudge to tobacco controllers. Yeah?

Indeed, a "nudge" from a government agency, vested interests, or a huge multinational industry could be quite insidious and intrusive, and you might not even be aware of it.  Thaler notes in the audio interview linked above that when his utilities company bills him for the power he used, he also sees how much power his neighbours are using (albeit, I imagine the actual names and addresses are not given ... at least I hope those aren't shown on the bill). That's an awesome nudge to force someone to reduce their power consumption:

"The Joneses are only consuming five-eighths of the gas and electricity that you use, Mr Powerwaster.  Perhaps you might want to reconsider that big screen TV, surround sound system, the 2000-watt mains-powered dildo, and the Friday night disco bash you host for your crossdressing mates in your garage each week. We know what you're doing. Just sayin'." 

To be clear, I'm not picking on Thaler here (or disco-loving crossdressers). Because when you listen to Thaler he's quite rational and sane about the application of his theory, I think. He wants it to be tested properly and thoroughly, and if the application of a nudge doesn't work for something, then don't use it. In fact, he agrees that perhaps there are some things that people should not be nudged to do, but rather simply asked, such as in the case of organ donations. Ask, don't force an opt-in.  I haven't read anything he's written about his theory, so I really cannot comment further about his views and theory.

So I'm on the fence. I don't mind the idea of being gently nudged by powerful vested interests towards whatever goal they seek, so long as their nudge isn't enshrined in law or some other punitive device that patently infringes on my freedom and civil liberties. But I get the feeling that if the UK government truly embraces the idea of the nudge to make people stop doing the things people want to do, then it will be abused.

And if that happens, I will be the first to stand up and say, "Don't nudge me, bro!" 

I'm Pro-MYOFB

So the Downfall parody vid is doing pretty good -- seventh-most popular post on this blog as of this writing. The YouTube video has had over 1,000 views in the past two days, which isn't bad considering that the Downfall meme is more than a bit overused.  To everyone who posted the vid on their blogs, on Twitter, shared it on Facebook, and posted it on various sites and forums, thank you very much. And there has been nary a peep out of the tobacco control industry, except for this tweet by The Root of All Evil.

Thanks for the plug, Root!

Well, I knew he wouldn't be able to resist tweeting about it. After all, he's mentioned in the parody, and any mention of his name, positive or negative, seems to please him. Because his ego is the size of a galaxy. At least he said it was "amusing" and that was quite generous.  I suppose he was hoping his legions of Twitter followers would dash to the YouTube player page and click the dislike button, but there are only 8 dislikes so far. Perhaps that's because even some of the anti-smokers out there realise that the parody is funny.  Or perhaps only about 8 people actually bothered to read Chapman's tweet. Whatever.

But the master of spin and propaganda has erred twice in his tweet.

A minor error here, granted, but he should have written "pro-smoker's" instead of adding the possessive apostrophe after the letter S.  Pro-smokers' is a possessive of a plural, and implies that there was more than one person who created this parody, and that's not true.  This is mine alone. Before it was uploaded to YouTube, I did send it off to two people for their feedback and proofing, and their comments were incredibly useful in helping me create the final video. When you write or create something, you get too close to it and miss obvious mistakes, so another set or two of eyes is vital. To my two proofers, thank you very much for your help.

The other error The Root of All Evil wrote is: "The same crowd who stopped the smoking ban in pubs (not)."  There was no crowd in 2006. Everyone had been led to believe that there would be exemptions for pubs, clubs and restaurants. We all could have lived with the public smoking ban just fine if those exemptions had been left in place, as originally intended. But the anti-smokers in Parliament deceived and betrayed all of us and deleted those exemptions without even consulting the public. It was only after that happened that bloggers and others began to speak out about the public smoking ban.  We have never been given an opportunity to challenge the ban, and that forms a large part of why we're disenfranchised and angry.

Smokers are a varied group, from all social, working and political classes.  Before the smoking ban, before the holy and righteous crusade of denormalisation, we did not align ourselves under the colour of SMOKER.  We were just everyday people who also smoked.  It was the anti-smokers who created us and categorised us as filthy, dirty, baby-killing smokers. This was not our decision.

We could fight off the public smoking ban, though. As Frank Davis often writes, there are more than enough of us to do so, if only we got together and made it happen.  Yet, I suppose we'll have to wait some time for this to occur. Perhaps when the doors to the gas chambers are at last opened, smokers may finally be motivated to stand up against the evil tobacco control industry.

Semantically, "pro-smoker" is also incorrect. I don't identify as a pro-smoker. I identify myself as "pro-Mind Your Own Fucking Business."   I'm pro-MYOFB. I don't care if you smoke or don't. I don't care if you drink or not. I don't care who you sleep with or what you do for work.  It's your life to live as best as you see fit. It's not mine. Who am I to tell you what to do or how to live?  What right does anyone have to do that? It is the apex of human arrogance to dictate and enforce your belief systems on others -- it is, of course, our nature to do so.  It is also our greatest human flaw.

This concept of letting people live their own lives, without undue interference from those who seek to control you, is lost on the prohibitionists -- all of them believe in their cause so blindly that they fail to see themselves as the tyrants they have become. They believe they are righteous.  But their tyranny is neither righteous nor benevolent. It's damaging our society by hateful degrees, turning people against people for no other reason than to sate their egos and validate their existences as nannying tyrant control freaks.

Perhaps being a public health zealot is addictive.  You know, that rush one gets when they are in control of another's life -- perhaps these shitbags are addicted to controlling other people. That must be it.  They must be addicted, because they seem unable to stop themselves from doing so.

Downfall of Plain Packs

Just a little something I think you'll enjoy.

Please feel free to share this video on your own blogs and sites.  Note: A link to a low-resolution version for mobile phones and the bandwidth-challenged is below the embedded video.

Downfall of Plain Packs

Low-Res Version link:  http://youtu.be/7JDlE02uanI

Silencing the Majority Opinion

Something most unusual (but not unexpected) is happening in New Zealand, the National Business Review reports today:

A month after consultation on its plain packaging regime for cigarettes closed, the Ministry of Health will not say how many submissions it received.

[...]

Yet the October 5 deadline for submissions passed unannounced, suggesting the number received in opposition could be huge.

NBR ONLINE asked the ministry about the numbers, but was told the volume would not be revealed until after the government has reached decision – expected by the end of the year.

So let's ask ourselves why the New Zealand Ministry of Health won't reveal the number of submissions until after the government has already decided.  Could it be that the huge opposition to plain packaging will damage the tobacco control industry's cause?  Perhaps the ministry learnt a lesson from the UK's consultation, which garnered over 500,000 responses in opposition to plain packs and easily surpassed the pro-plain packs submissions. Such massive opposition in the UK did great harm to the tobacco control industry's campaign.  If New Zealand is trying to avoid extreme negative publicity in its quest to eradicate smokers, then perhaps dishonestly refusing to disclose the number of submissions is helpful to their cause.

Whatever the reasons for withholding the submissions tally, which the NBR believes to have exceeded 10,000 responses, it is a most troubling sign that our western governments are refusing to be transparent at every step of the process of public consultations.

The agenda for those in Public Health is clear:  You are "free" to do only what we tell you to do. Do not question us.

Indeed, in an extremely unusual move, the UK's Department of Health early-released an incredibly one-sided and incomplete Freedom of Information request that obviously was intended to damage the Hands Off Our Packs campaign.  I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories, but that FOI seemed to be a deliberate attempt by those in government agencies and the tobacco control industry to discredit and silence the majority in order to further their agenda. 

What sort of shenanigans should we expect in the coming weeks when the DH finally releases its report on the consultation?  How many more FOIs will need to be sent to the DH to discern how much influence the tobacco control industry has over our government official and agencies? What sort of corruption will we find? And will it be too late to do anything about it when we do learn the truth?

We need to rethink how our democratic governments work and represent us. They are supposed to be working for us. Instead, we find our societies increasingly under the thumbs of oppressive democratic-socialist regimes that aim to dictate how free citizens must live their lives.  Our western civilisation is looking more and more like the former USSR with each passing year. 

Are we in control of ourselves and our own destinies, or are our governments controlling us? If the latter holds true, then it can only be our fault for tacitly accepting governmental intrusions into our liberties and freedoms.  It's time we held our government ministers and officials responsible for their actions.  It's time to shine some light into the darkest crevices in our government institutions. 

It's time to stand up for freedom and liberty and be silent no longer.

Sunday Funnies

Just a selection of things to brighten up your day. 

This ought to clear a few things up.

Spoof from the legendary Lawson Narse
Do click through to see the original

You can still smoke in the Australian Outback, it seems

Australia's Favourite Bed Time Storyteller, Nicola Roxon

Perfect for this year's Christmas cards to anti-smoker MPs and fake charities.
I am not responsible, however, if you go to jail for sending it.

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. **

Dangerous Pro-Smoking Smartphones

The arrogance of the tobacco control industry is stunning and it shines through magnificently in this piece in the Conversation (the favoured op-ed for prohibitionists down under) called "No more cigarette advertising? Never mind, there’s an app for that."

Co-authored by The Root of All Evil's minion Becky Freeman, this short article -- that required three people to write a paltry 628 words between them -- complains about smartphone applications that let users decorate their screens with images of cigarette brand logos.  Since tobacco companies are no longer able to put their logos and shiny trade marks on a packet of fags in Australia, or indeed on anything these days, Mrs Freeman et al are worried that the iPhone has become the next dangerous weapon wielded by the ever-clever marketing executives in tobacco companies:

Public health officials and governments have never been able to keep up with determined and inspired cigarette advertising executives.

This bold statement feigning helplessness is certainly untrue.  The WHO, Public Health zealots and vapid politicians the world over have been busier than ever in closing any so-called advertising loopholes that the Big Bad Tobacco companies have insidiously exploited to ensnare unsuspecting seven-year-olds, including but not limited to tiny letters on a cigarette paper that read "ESC."  So something must be done.

Many countries which have enacted tobacco advertising bans state that they also include all forms of Internet-based advertising. But, there is very little evidence on whether or how well these sorts of provisions are actually being enforced. Australia’s recently enacted ban of online tobacco advertising has yet to be tested.

Given the nature of the Internet, the ability for users to surf via proxies that easily bypass any state-controlled censorship measures and blacklists, it is nigh impossible to regulate the content that appears on the web.  How do you stop people from visiting an American web site that has a gorgeous and temptation-laden iconic image of a packet of Marlboro Reds on display?  How do you stop ordinary smartphone users from downloading or sharing smartphone applications over peer-to-peer file sharing networks?  How best can you can control what you do not want people to see in the digital age?

Equally important, how do you define "advertising"?

Because the anti-smoker True Believers have legislated that any kind of trade mark or logo is de facto advertising. To them, this must mean that anything that is capable of displaying a wicked cigarette brand logo is a de facto advertising medium that must be controlled in order to save billions of lives from the "tobacco epidemic." And who should be the ones in control? Yep, that's right: Public Health nutjobs.

Research on internet content regulation has failed to address the global nature of the online world, so international collaboration on internet regulation is imperative. The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is an ideal mechanism to exchange analysis and information on emerging technologies and best practices for online tobacco advertising bans.

Well that's a nice plug for the FCTC.  In fact, it occurs to me that this article by Freeman et al is nothing more than advertising their hate campaign to like-minded prohibitionist zealots. For they also write: "Indeed, app stores can also be a fantastic resource for health promoting activities."

I like to imagine that Becky Freeman and Simon Chapman come up with these ideas whilst sitting in their office at Sydney University, drinking cheap Oyster Bay wine and musing how clever they all are that they alone can save the world from itself. The all important save the world routine in order to garner more funds for your research.  I suppose that compared to Chapman's record-breaking 55-page Curriculum Vitae, Mrs Freeman has a bit more work to do to catch up.  Don't forget to add how many Twitter followers you have, Becky.

Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously?

The article makes one very interesting point, though.  If indeed the smartphone applications are not authorised by tobacco companies, then why haven't the tobacco companies "taken any steps to prevent app developers from abusing their trademark?"  It's a good and fair question to ask.

I suspect that the answers to that are likely to be:

A) The companies did not know about them until about a week ago when Twitter was alight with "OMG!!!! There are pro-smoking smartphone apps which will make our children try smoking! Call the POLICE!!!!" tweets;

B) Tobacco companies are taking action against them but nobody bothered to ask them if they were;

C) Nobody considers that legal actions, such as defending against trade mark infringements, take an extraordinary amount of time to resolve. They do not happen overnight.  Nor has anyone asked the tobacco companies how many cases of improper trade mark use and infringement they have already dealt with this year.  I would bet the figure is quite substantial.

Just so we're all clear, particularly for those in Australia, this is advertising:

An example of advertising for your ease of reference
Source: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1973-Sexy-Redhead-Woman-Camel-Cigarettes-Print-Ad-/390335579635

And this is a phone with an image of a cigarette, which is not advertising:

Is this really a pro-smoking picture? If you're Australian, you bet it is! Source: theage.com.au

For an alternate viewpoint on this matter, feel free to check out this article by Annabel Crabb.

I suppose we can take small comfort in the knowledge that Freeman et al have said "There is no suggestion that anyone be prevented from distributing pro-smoking content online [...]," except when you read between the lines of that rhetoric, we see most clearly that the evil machinations of the WHO by dint of the FCTC will do precisely that ... if we let them.

I'll Take the Gory Eye Pack, Please

I tweeted this last night. But tweets are fleeting things, forgotten about quickly and hard to track down later, and so it's worth a proper blog post.  File under the Law of Unintended Consequences:

Here's an article from The Examiner in Australia titled "Plain packaging won't deter smokers: seller."  The lede says:

NEW plain packaging laws could backfire badly, smokers and cigarette sellers warn.

Really? What could possibly go wrong? I mean the haggish anti-smoker extraordinaire Nicola Roxon had surely done all of her homework. Yeah? She had surveys, research and stuff from Public Health nitwits that said:

[...] research shows that the mandatory introduction from December 1 of plain cigarette packs with graphic health warnings and the same colour for all brands will decrease the smoking rate.

Cause you know, smokers only care about the packaging. That has to be true. The one and only thing that keeps smokers lighting up is a shiny trade mark on a packet. Nothing at all to do with tobacco itself; nothing to do with smoking.  Research from those who know everything shows it to be true that putting graphic images on a cardboard box will decrease the smoking rate. You trust research. Don't you?

No?  Well, maybe plain packaging will discourage the younger smokers. I mean what kind of teenager likes gross images on any kind of product? Surely the young adults will see the packet and run for the hills.  Hmm. Let's see:

"The younger generation says, `oh cool' (to the graphic new images on the packs) - for them, the more ghoulish the better."

I'm sorry? What was that? The "more ghoulish the better," you say?  And plain packs are "cool"!!! That can't be right. There's actual peer-reviewed research that shows kids won't smoke if you put a gory eyeball picture on a packet that looks exactly like this:

The Preferred Graphic for Younger Plain Packs Enthusiasts!

Something isn't right with Australian young adults these days if they want to buy cigarettes with gory pictures of diseased lungs and teeth.

That's OK, though, because surely the older adults with all of their life experience and knowledge of the facts will see the pictures and stop buying cigarettes. Won't you, adults? Won't you stop smoking?

"But others (older customers) go, `oh yuck', so we are selling a lot more cigarette cases.''

Mrs Wade said this resulted in the same volume of cigarette sales but also higher sales of cigarette cases and tins, which was probably not what the federal government wanted.

"It's backfiring because the cigarettes (in the cigarette cases) are a lot more attractive than they originally were (in the branded packs).

"The customers believe that the government is basically treating them like fools.''

Oh, dang! Looks like adults who don't like the packets have found an alternative solution. Nobody would have ever thought of taking the cigarettes out of the packet and putting them into an attractive case. Surely the research would have considered that?

So what does the tobacco control industry say about this?

Quit Tasmania director of quit services Kathryn Terry said research showed the new rules would work.

There's that pesky research again.  Sorry, the research is wrong and plain packs won't work because the prohibitionists like Terry or Roxon will never comprehend human nature, or if they do they choose to ignore it in pursuit of a totalitarian puritanical society.  Smokers aren't fools, and kids aren't stupid. They see right through your hate campaign. Of course we know that won't stop the True Believers.

So really, if public smoking bans fail to work, if government legislation requiring gory pics on a pack fail to work, then all that's left for the hateful anti-smoker nutjobs to do is to legislate that cigarettes taste like shit. 

And if the unelected technocrats in the WHO gets their way, that should happen in the next few years, I figure.

The eye pack is really growing on me. It could be a collector's item someday, so save up your gory packets, kids.

That North East Slippery Slope

You know how the anti-smokers always deny the slippery slope or domino effect every time it is fairly and accurately brought up?  Well, they're lying. They know they're lying, too.  It's one thing to repeat the lie not knowing that is a lie; it is an entirely different thing to know that it's a lie and continue to say it anyway.  Let me put it another way:

No matter what your cause is, no matter how noble you believe it to be, deliberately lying and misinforming the public makes you an immoral son of a bitch.  It means you're a duplicitous, evil bastard from hell.

Of course when you're giving presentations to your own groups of like-minded prohibitionists, or to those sympathetic to the cause of governments controlling everyone's lifestyle, there's not any need for deceit. You can tell like it is.  So enter Andy Lloyd, the Media, Communications and Social Marketing Manager for the taxpayer-funded anti-smoker group Fresh NE.

Andy made a presentation about Fresh NE that I stumbled upon whilst searching for something else related to plain packs (Google is a very useful tool!). That presentation is stored on the LGcommunications web site, which seems to be a national body comprised of government institutions as members that aims to "raise the standard of communications in local government."  I have no idea whether the Lloyd's presentation was supposed to be publicly accessible. I searched the LGcommunications web site's pages for anything referencing Andy Lloyd or Fresh NE and came up with squat.  But I found it, because Google offered it up to me, so I'm going to share it with you (PDF - 2.3MB).  Hell, you paid for it, so you might as well get to see how your money is spent. Right?

The whole presentation is a fascinating look into the minds of the anti-smoker movement and the slimy techniques they employ to dupe an increasingly gullible media and public into believing their tripe.  A number of slides leapt out at me as particularly important, but this one below really captivates:

presentation slide no.5 (click image to enlargify)

Now the third bullet point says that Fresh NE's aim is to "make smoking less desirable, normal, accessible and affordable."  That's no surprise. We've seen all of this as part of the anti-smoker denormalisation programme for years. The whole idea is to make smokers pay through the nose for the legal consumption of tobacco products.  If you have no money left to spend on tobacco, then you're counted as a successful statistic in their books.  So what if you're poor and living on the street. At least you aren't smoking, is their view.  Curiously, no mention of "The Children" in that bullet point. I think Andy Lloyd may have missed a trick there.

But the fifth bullet point ... that one is gold. It is proof that the alcohol control group Balance was "set up in 2009 along similar models" to Fresh NE's programme. We call this the Tobacco Control Template.  If something works for the tobacco control industry, you can be assured that other prohibitionist industries, working under the guise of the Public Health religion's banner, will try the same techniques.

Indeed, if you pop on over to Balance's web site, you see that the same guy who helped develop Fresh NE's programme of hate is now working at Balance to target drinkers (emphasis added):

Colin Shevills
Director
His knowledge, experience, passion and communication expertise really allow Colin to lead from the front - driving home the message that alcohol is damaging our region and calling for changes which will make a positive impact on the health and wealth of the region. A former communications consultant, he has extensive experience working in the field of public health. He previously helped to develop the brand for Fresh, Smoke Free North East and was instrumental in the successful launch of the office. He has worked at Balance since it was launched in 2009 and he has been instrumental in the growth and development of the organisation.

The same people who drove smokers out of the cosy warmth of a pub onto the cold, wet pavements of Britain, the same people who are responsible for the increasing amount of intolerance and hate against decent human beings who smoke (although they deny they encourage it, they most certainly do encourage it), they are also in the alcohol control industry.  That speaks volumes. Does it not?  And this is only just one example. There are dozens of these people in the UK doing the same.

Because Public Health isn't about keeping our drinking water clean, or protecting populations from communicable diseases.  Public Health isn't even about "The Children," despite that they wave that banner almost ceaselessly.  No, Public Health is about telling you that you are a very bad person if you do not conform to their ideas of a perfectly clean lifestyle devoid of any pleasures that humans might possibly enjoy.

Public Health these days is corrupted. Public Health is all about prohibition and control of the plebs. Plain and simple.

But you knew that already.

Superstorm Sandy Caused By Smokers, Say Experts

Tobacco control researchers in England say multinational tobacco corporations and millions of their smoking customers are to blame for the recent superstorm ravaging the U.S. coastline.  Citing the Butterfly Effect in chaos theory (the sensitive dependence on initial conditions, where a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences to a later state) and by cross-referencing data gleaned from a live feed of Australian Simon Chapman's excessive wind-farm rants on Twitter, the researchers' study concluded that the excessive exhalation of hazardous tobacco smoke by depraved nicotine addicts are causing disturbances in the world's weather systems.

Dr Annette Shillmore, of the Lifestyle Control Research Group, a taxpayer-funded NGO based in Bath, England, said there is little doubt in her mind that Big Tobacco is to blame.  "The initial idea came to me when I was walking past a group of shivering, disgusting smokers standing outside the local pub.

"I watched these dirty people blow their carcinogenic filth up into the air with such great force, far greater than the exhalations of your typical non-smoker it should be said, and I instinctively realised right then that smokers were to blame for bad weather all over the world. I mean, if one tiny butterfly can affect global weather patterns, it's blatantly obvious that smokers are responsible for cyclones in the Atlantic."

Dr Shillmore then lobbied for and received a Department of Health taxpayer-funded grant for £600,000 to commission and analyse a web-based, one-question survey targeted at 23 students at an east London hairdressing academy. The survey question was "Are smokers to blame for everything?"

82.3% of those surveyed answered "Yes."

"Those who answered "no" were probably smokers and cannot be trusted," Dr Shillmore explained.  "The survey data conclusively prove that Big Tobacco's consumers are at fault for superstorms since at least 1912.

"Besides," she added, "I found a damning tobacco company document from 1944 about ships from Cuba carrying cigarettes and cigars to American troops in Europe, and those ships had sailed through the Bermuda Triangle region. Why would they do that if tobacco companies weren't interested in weather phenomena?  I believe Big Tobacco has a super-secret base of operations there, and they have to be responsible for all those mysterious disappearances in the Triangle, too."

A spokesperson for the tobacco lobby said there was no evidence that smoking caused superstorm Sandy, but added that even if smoking outside could cause extreme weather, it could easily be prevented by repealing the public smoking ban and letting people smoke indoors again.

A recent satellite image taken of the Bermuda Triangle region
Source: Dr Shillmore - Lifestyle Control Research Group

What the Real Experts Say About Plain Packs

We all know that anything that tobacco industry says is treated with great suspicion by Public Health activists and governments the world over. Big Tobacco is considered a "pariah industry" these days and so anything they say will be roundly ignored regardless of evidence or whether it's true. Anybody who speaks out against the True Believers in Public Health are denigrated as somehow being aligned with big tobacco and advocating that every last person on the planet should get cancer and die.  It's not remotely true, but Public Health activists will decry it at every opportunity nevertheless.

When it comes to plain packaging of tobacco products, of course tobacco companies are going to be against it. What company, anywhere in the world, would not be against government forcing them to put their products in plain packaging?  I cannot think of any.  Because, all things being equal, every company wants to package their products in the manner of their choosing.  That's what anyone would expect in a free society.  But of course we no longer live in a free society -- we live in an era where admitted socialists, communists, and religiously-motivated prohibitionist nutjobs* have taken over what used to be Public Health and turned it into a relentless, propaganda-filled hate campaign against smokers, drinkers and, more recently, chubby people.

*(Look, I don't care what you believe. Believe in anything you like. Just don't tell me what I should believe, nor tell me how to live my life.)

Anyway, tobacco companies will not be listened to any longer. But what about other businesses who don't sell tobacco?  Are their opinions on plain packaging worthy of being considered?

In February 2012, the European Carton Manufacturers Association (ECMA) had a meeting with the European Directorate responsible for health, particularly tobacco control.  You won't find any press releases about it anywhere. You won't find any mention of this in newspapers or on the 10 o'clock news.  You would never know about it unless you read the minutes of the meeting, which you would also never know existed. And isn't it truly a sad state of the world in which we live where some average blogger like me, who is no different from any of you and is not a "journalist" is the one to locate and point this stuff out to you?

So I'm going to give you the full minutes of that meeting.  You should read the entire thing.  These guys... they make packaging for a living. They know what they're talking about.  They don't just supply the tobacco industry -- they supply every known industry in the EC and outside of it.  These people know packaging.  So what do they say?

Have a look at this document and see:

[Update -- I have edited this article and removed the embedded PDF that was inserted here, due to a weird glitch which forced web browsers to jump to and display this location upon loading the page.]

Here are some choice excerpts -- and mind you, this is not the tobacco industry -- these are the people who really know the importance and value of packaging for every industry (emphases added throughout):

ECMA stated that it supported EU’s health objectives. However, ECMA believes that the possible introduction of plain packaging – whilst being well intended – would lead to serious negative consequences in form of increased counterfeits. In this respect reference was made to

• lower entry barriers for counterfeit production ("production equipment required for plain packaging is simple and therefore can be sourced as second hand equipment with costs only up to €1 million compared to new equipment for current complex designs with graphical health warnings that costs more than €10 million per production line"),

• an increased scale for the counterfeit markets (the packages are all alike) and

• the limited capability for consumers to identify counterfeits.

Increased counterfeit would lead to greater health risks (counterfeited products are unregulated) and tax losses (already today, according to EU figures, Member States lose €10 billion annually in tax revenues due to counterfeit and contraband). ECMA also claimed that it was far from certain whether plain packages would lead to better health outcomes, in particular reduction in prevalence and consumption.

ECMA explained that the only way of fighting counterfeiting effectively is allowing a variety of designs which are complex and frequently changed. Currently, there are increasingly frequent changes made to the design of cigarette packages by the cigarette manufacturers independent of legislative requirements. The life span of a design / pack shape could be as little as three to six months.

After the introduction of graphical health warnings in some of the EU Member States, ECMA members have made substantial investment in printing technologies used for cigarette packs in order to combine the existing complex design features with the newly required graphical health warnings. If plain packaging was to be introduced, much of this specialized equipment would become obsolete as plain packaging eliminates all complex design features and hence can be produced with less sophisticated equipment and at lower cost. This is what would drive the risk of counterfeiting.

So there you go. That's the experts on packaging.  And lest you think they are aligned with the tobacco industry, do note that tobacco companies comprise a mere 10% of their business.  They could lose that 10% and it would hurt, but they would easily get by with the remaining 90%.  So in no way can we say that ECMA are tobacco company stooges -- yet we know the Public Health zealots will say exactly that.

But we are not done yet.  Keep reading the minutes and other interested parties jump in.  Meet the paper industry, Deutsche Benkert (emphases added throughout):

Deutsche Benkert agreed with the statements of ECMA that plain packaging leads to increased counterfeits, which would not only be detrimental for the package industry, but also for the paper industry (jobs would probably shift to illicit producers in Asia).

Counterfeiters do not adhere to any regulation such as low ignition propensity legislation when it comes to the production of a cigarette either. Deutsche Benkert alluded to corresponding research projects which revealed that missing regulations and supervision can lead to a harmful contaminations, such as lead contents, rat and bird droppings etc. in counterfeited products. As a consequence, this might represent an additional health risk to regular smokers and possibly commencing smokers.

And there's even more at risk here!  You should really consider reading the whole thing.

Plain packaging makes no sense at all, not just to consumers and the tobacco industry, but to all industries throughout the world.  The activists in the Public Health religion know all of these facts already, yet they want to destroy not only the tobacco industry and smokers' lives, but industries who make packaging and supply paper products. In their quest for the eradication of smokers, they will hurt any industry that gets in their way.

We need to stop the Public Health movement from ruining our already dismal economy throughout Britain and the EU. Public Health wants a new world order of control, so destroying capitalism suits them just fine.

Spread the word, please.

Australia - Where Dreams Go to Die

One might imagine that we plucky bloggers would eventually run out of things to write about regarding how utterly insane Australia has become. One would be wrong.  I won't lie: nothing would give me greater pleasure to be able to write something positive for once.  But there's nothing at all good in Australia any longer.  Nothing. It is heartbreaking.  So we write about the stupidity, because we must.

With a hat tip to DP for tweeting it, we come to learn that there is nothing at all more dangerous to children and women than tiny letters -- so cleverly designed, so evilly tempting, that the mere sight of the alphanumeric code "ESC 01" will cause unborn foetuses on another continent to crave that silky smooth taste of a Holiday cigarette.  Look for yourself:

WANT! GIVE TO ME!

In his blog post "The idiots have won" Christopher Snowdon writes:

Australian anti-smoking fruitcakes—led, inevitably, by that twisted old narcissist Simon Chapman—have complained that cigarette companies are breaching plain packaging rules because....well, I really don't know...watch the video and see if you can work it out. It seems to come down to the fact that the tobacco industry is allowed to stamp a few letters on the cigarettes for purposes of identification (how very liberal!) and so they have.
[...]
I would like to comment on this, I really would, but the nutters have finally gone beyond the point at which I can even understand their arguments.

And if the above pic didn't quite tempt a three-year-old to start smoking, perhaps this one will:

How dare tobacco companies do this! It's outrageous! Just look!

I had no idea that plain packaging laws in Australia prevented tobacco companies from  putting their brand name on the cigarette itself.  It doesn't make sense at all. Think about it.  If you could put the brand name on the packet, in 12pt font, and that's good enough to keep Australian school kids safe from being tempted to try smoking, then what's the problem with the brand name being on the cigarette itself?

The problem is that it's not about health.  It's about destroying tobacco companies and denormalising adult human beings who smoke. It's about making it difficult for consumers to identify the brands they prefer.  It's about making all cigarettes exactly the same -- appearance, shape, taste ... all of it.

It's about control.  It's about controlling you and the choices available to you.  For if you have no choice, then you do not have control over your own life and your decisions.

That's why it's called Tobacco Control. 

Every last person who works for the tobacco control industry is evil, from within the WHO, through fake charities and puppet journalists in the media, from within the Department of Health Hate, and in some cases all the way down to your local NHS GP in Shepard's Bush.  Sure, they don't know that they're evil -- it doesn't register in their mind at all, just like Hitler and his minions wrongly believed they were righteous crusaders for the greater good.  But they are evil.  Very much so.

Well, Australia is the test-bed for all things evil these days. Clearly.  No doubt there are a few sane people living down under, and I pity each and everyone of them who are trapped in that hellish prison through no fault of their own.  But the majority of Australians are idiots for believing, accepting and preaching the Public Health religion's gospel.

There is only one thing to do.  I've mentioned it before.  But now.  Now!  Now I have a graphic for it, so it's time to kick it off right.  Can't do anything without a graphic to post on a blog or Facebook. Right? That's my point.

It's time to boycott Australia.  That's right. Boycott everything Australian. 

Do not buy any Australian goods -- not their wine (particularly Oyster Bay -- The Root of All Evil will understand why), beer, opals, meat, surfboard wax, or wool.  Nothing. If you see Australian products in your local, ask the shopkeeper not to stock them or risk losing your custom.

Do not travel to or holiday in Australia.

Do not send packages to Australian relatives or to any businesses, for this will only support the delivery transport industry.

Do not accept telephone calls from anyone in Australia, for this will support the Australian telecoms.

Don't even watch Australian television programmes or films (except for Farscape -- that's OK, since it was produced by Jim Henson's company).

If you even suspect that something might be Australian, walk away from it.  And then wash your hands, just to be safe you weren't contaminated.

Yes, I know it's silly, and yes I know I might get about five of you to boycott Australia (and that's a generous overestimate).  But together, we can make a difference.  So have a graphic.  It was made by the incredibly talented Lawson Narse.  Which just makes it all the more awesomely cool, if you ask me.

Also, do note that if you post the graphic on your blog or share it on Facebook or Twitter, you could save a child from being tortured by the Public Health crusaders in Australia.  Really, won't you think about the children!?

UPDATE!  There is now an official BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA Facebook Page.