“There are plenty of weapons of persuasion, of restriction, of financial penalty by price and tax increases with which we could seriously hope to reduce the consumption of cigarettes by a substantial proportion within 5 years”
That quote comes from the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health held in New York in 1975 where anti-smoker advocates gathered to plan their crusade to eliminate smoking: “our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking.” The report stemming from the conference can only be described as an anti-smoker manifesto which has recently been referred to as the Godber Blueprint
The “weapons of persuasion” referred to in the statement include, of course, the draconian smoking bans and usurious levels of tobacco taxation the anti-smoker zealots pressured governments around the world into implementing. But, over the last few years, there has been growing evidence that smoking bans and government extortion in the form of penalizing tobacco taxes have not had the desired effect. In fact, many anti-smoking initiatives appear to be counterproductive.
For example, higher tobacco taxes are considered by the anti-smoker brigade to be the most effective way to reduce tobacco consumption, especially for young people and others with low incomes. According to Luke Clancy, Director General of the Irish Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society, a new institute set up by the government to look at all aspects of research on tobacco control, it is “the most important intervention there is in tobacco control”.
Professor Clancy has also served two five years terms as chairman of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) Ireland, which is among the more rabid anti-smoker groups. And, last month Clancy's anti-smoker bias was clearly evident in an article on Inside Ireland, when he took issue with the failure of the Irish government to increase the country's already punitive levels of tobacco taxes.
Ireland's Finance Minister, Brian Lenihan, indicated he would not increase the price of tobacco as it could lead to further growth in tobacco smuggling.
Clancy appears to recognize the scope of the problem: “Smuggling of tobacco into this country has now reached epidemic proportions and must be tackled head on by the government. Over 20% of cigarettes smoked in this country are non-duty paid in Ireland – so the loss in revenue to the exchequer is over €400 (million) euro per annum.”
But, he is not prepared to admit that outrageous tobacco taxes are the cause of the problem. And, even if they are, his solution is simply to crack down on smuggling.
In October, confronted with evidence that smoking prevalence in Ireland was at an eleven year high of 33%, despite high tobacco taxes and a smoking ban in pubs and restaurants, Clancy told the Independent: "There is no evidence of any decline in smoking in this survey, indicating a clear need for higher prices of cigarettes and better treatment of tobacco-dependence."
Clancy's position mimics that of others in the anti-smoker cult; smokers must be coerced into quitting, regardless of any other costs to society.
And, there are other costs. There is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that smuggling and the illegal tobacco trade are cutting into government revenues. And, there are additional costs to law enforcement budgets. At the same time, there is considerable damage to the the livelihoods of convenience store owners and tobacco retailers.
And, the problem is not confined to Ireland. The same problem is surfacing in Great Britain, Germany and, seemingly, the rest of the developed world. In Norway, it is estimated that 40% of the cigarettes smoked are smuggled.
Canada has one of the most serious contraband problems in the world. It's estimated that roughly 50% of all tobacco sold in Ontario is contraband. The provincial government admits to losing over $500 million dollars in tax revenue annually. Across Canada, that likely translates to billions in lost tax revenue.
In Canada, tobacco taxes have pushed the price of cigarettes far beyond what most consumers are willing to pay, beyond what many can afford to pay. But, the demand persists. And, given the economic incentive, there will always be those willing to supply that demand. Price no longer lowers consumption, it simply forces consumers to seek alternative, less costly sources of supply from an unregulated market.
And, despite large seizures of contraband, both in Europe and here at home, I suspect the involvement of “organized crime” is over-stated. I would opine that most of the smuggling is done by ordinary citizens; seniors, the unemployed and underemployed, and yes, a few small time crooks looking to make an easy buck.
In Europe, it's largely a matter of smokers buying cigarettes in low tax jurisdictions and smuggling them into jurisdictions where the anti-smoker crowd has convinced politicians that exploitive taxation is sound fiscal policy. In Canada, we have the added advantage of access to First Nations reserves where tax free smokes are available at a fraction of the cost of the taxed variety.
On a personal note, the cost of my pack a day habit and that of my wife is eased by regular trips to the First Nations. The $400 a month savings stretches my monthly pension cheque considerably.
Do I feel like a criminal? Hell, no!
The real criminals are the weal-kneed bastards in Ottawa and Queen's Park who allow the anti-smoker fanatics to lead them around by the nose. The hypocrites who target low income groups, pensioners and others on fixed incomes with unconscionable taxes in the name of public health.
Earlier this month, in a post titled “Who stole my e-cig”, I mentioned that I had tracked an electronic cigarette I'd ordered to a customs office in Mississauga. It had apparently arrived there on November 4, 2009. Just before Christmas, over six weeks after the package arrived at customs, I received official notification from Health Canada (Health Protection Branch) advising me that the product contained “prescription drugs” and they were refusing entry.
“The above product(s) contain Schedule F drugs. The importation of prescription drugs is restricted to persons designated under Section C.01.045 of the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations. In the opinion of the undersigned, the sale of this product in Canada would constitute a violation of Section(s) C.01.045.”
Section C.01.045 of the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations states quite clearly: “Importations of Schedule F drugs by Canadian residents are not permitted by mail or courier.”
The “Report of Examination for Customs Entry” identifies the product as an e-cigarette, with a quantity listed of 10 cartridges. Nowhere in the documentation I received, however, is the “prescription” drug identified, although we can safely assume it was nicotine. OK, maybe we shouldn't assume anything for fear of making an ASS out of U and ME. After all, I once assumed I could rely on Health Canada for accurate, science-based information.
What a crock of shit that turned out to be, at least as far as smoking and secondhand smoke is concerned.
But, the last time I looked, the pharmacy I deal with was selling at least some nicotine products “over-the-counter”, without the need for a prescription; nicotine gum, lozenges and the ever-popular patch, for example.
Schedule “F” of the Food and Drugs Act tells us that nicotine is on the list of prohibited drugs . . . unless it's in an acceptable form and dosage:
“Nicotine and its salts, [are prohibited] for human use, except
(a) in natural substances;
(b) in the form of a chewing gum containing 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit;
(c) in the form of a transdermal patch with a delivery rate of 22 mg or less of nicotine per day;
(d) in a form to be administered orally by means of an inhalation device delivering 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit; or
(e) in the form of a lozenge containing 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit”
Surprise. Surprise. The acceptable forms of nicotine are those produced by the major drug companies.
The form letter explaining the refusal of entry suggests that if I have a prescription from a doctor, the drug (nicotine) is apparently acceptable, but . . . the prescription must be filled in Canada. “It is recommended that you contact your doctor to obtain a prescription for this medication which must be filled in Canada.”
But, would any doctor cut a prescription for nicotine to be administered via an electronic cigarette? Actually, I believe they would. Several prominent public health authorities have recently expressed support for the electronic cigarette as a means of harm reduction for smokers unable (or unwilling) to quit.
Professor Carl Phillips is one of a number of experts who have come out in favour of the device. Phillips, an associate professor at the University of Alberta, estimates that electronic cigarettes carry a risk that "is probably in the order of 99 percent less harmful than smoking." He adds: "I think there's absolutely no doubt that it is a safer alternative to regular cigarettes."
Other experts who have spoken out in favour of the electronic cigarette include Dr Joel Nitzkin, Chair of the Tobacco Control Task Force for the American Association of Public Health Physicians, Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University School of Public Health, and David Sweanor, a former advisor on tobacco control to the WHO.
And, during a visit with my cardiologist just before Christmas, I was told:. “I don't know that much about the electronic cigarette, but if it will get you off the (unprofessional expletive deleted) cigarettes, it's OK with me.”
Of course, I suspect he may have had a similar reaction if I'd told him I was going to dry and cure the bullshit spread by the anti-smoker cult and use it as a tobacco substitute.
But, it must be pointed out, that, even with a prescription, I still couldn't get my nicotine in Canada. None of the major drug companies in Canada provide medicinal nicotine in a format consistent with the particular delivery system with which I chose to experiment, an electronic cigarette. The drug companies, in fact, are in direct competition with the manufacturers of the electronic cigarette. Their nicotine replacement products (gum, lozenges, inhalors, etc) bring in billions in revenue annually.
So, it's not surprising that their industry allies in the anti-smoker brigade lobby against the new nicotine delivery system. What's good for big pharma is good for the anti-smoker zealots.
Health Canada has a legitimate role to play in protecting the public from potentially harmful products. The electronic cigarette should be regulated to resolve quality control issues and protect consumers. But the outright prohibition of electronic cigarettes deprives the consumer of choice and protects no one but the big pharmaceutical companies and their monopoly on alternative nicotine delivery systems.
And, if it's simply the nicotine cartridges to which Health Canada objects, why are they still holding my two spare batteries, the battery chargers and carrying case. Why not simply remove the objectionable material and send me the rest of the shipment?
I will be writing a few letters to various government agencies and ministers of the crown; to voice my disapproval. I won't hold my breath waiting for any kind of response.
That might prove a damn sight more hazardous to my health than the e-cig.
Anti-smoker groups are demanding that President Barack Obama deny Santa Claus access to US airspace this Christmas unless Santa's Toyland immediately signs on to the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and Santa quits smoking.
A spokesman for the Alliance to Stomp on Smokers (ASS) claims Santa is a smoker, pointing to the poem by Clement Moore, “A Visit from Saint Nicholas", which clearly states:
“The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath.”
The spokesman explained that, as a smoker, Santa could become a corrupting influence on young children if he is allowed to continue his disgusting, despicable habit. “Seeing Santa as a smoker could lure millions of kids to take up the habit, turning them into hopeless, nicotine addicted perverts”, said the spokesman. “And, need I mention the serious health hazards associated with third hand smoke posed to kids in homes where Santa decides to take a smoke break.”
The spokesman is pointing to candid pictures of Santa smoking his pipe that have recently flooded the internet on sites such as You Tube. “Kids see these things and think it's cool to smoke.” he said.
Another anti-smoking group sees it as a tobacco company ploy meant to entice kids to take up the habit. They have initiated a campaign to have parents put out a supply of nicorette gum or lozenges in place of the more traditional milk and cookies. “We must protect the children from the evil influence of this tobacco company stooge.”
Confronted by reporters at the White House, President Obama bummed a cigarette, had the Secret Service cordon off a nearby washroom and retired “to give the matter some thought.” Said Obama, “Jeez, don't you guys smoke anything but these bloody menthols.”
A State Department spokesman said it was unlikely there would be time to take the matter before congress prior to Christmas, but promised to take the matter up in the new year.
Merry Christmas, Everybody
Back in 2008, I posted an entry on a comment made by Sir George Godber to a UN sponsored conference. I'd found the reference in a written copy of Godber's address on a tobacco documents web site. But, I neglected to follow up on the document.
The 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health (“The Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”) was held in New York from June 2 June 5, 1975.
Sir George noted that the means by which smokers could be encouraged to quit, was to : “foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily” to secondhand smoke.
In other words, the perception of harm to others would have a far greater impact on convincing smokers to give up the habit than merely harping on the long term health risks to smokers themselves. It would also make it easier to convince the public that discrimination against smokers was justified, not just for their own good, but to protect the health of those around them.
Among the recommendations coming out of the conference was: “That it be recognized that unrestricted tobacco smoking in closed areas create a health hazard for millions of persons with a wide variety of medical susceptibilities and conditions and causes physical irritation and discomfort to the majority of nonsmokers . . . “
But while Godber and associates were prepared to recognize secondhand smoke as a health hazard, there was no scientific evidence to support that contention. This was made clear by another of the recommendations suggesting that: “Research [be conducted] to find out if [secondhand] smoke harms nonsmokers.”
In fact, it would be years before Japanese epidemiologist Takeshi Hirayama released his first study in 1981 associating a higher risk of lung cancer among non-smoking women married to smoking men than non-smoking women married to non-smoking men. Hirayama is generally credited with publishing the first study linking SHS to lung cancer.
But, despite the lack of evidence, the anti-smoker zealots declared secondhand smoke a health hazard in 1975 . . . six years before the Hirayama study. And, Hirayama's study proved controversial, as do most studies on the subject.
The anti-smoker zealots were already laying the groundwork to create the perception that secondhand smoke was a health hazard. And, true to the prognostications of Sir George Godber, the perception has replaced the reality. The public, misled by the propaganda, now accept secondhand smoke as a deadly substance from which non-smokers need protection.
Author Chritopher Snowdon explored the epidemiological evidence in an appendix to his book, Velvet Glove, Iron Fist.. “Of the epidemiological papers that studied the effect of secondhand smoke on nonsmoking wives, 9 found a statistically significant positive association, 3 found a statistically significant negative association and the remaining 52 found no statistically significant association either way.”
If you truly want to understand the evidence, how these studies are conducted and what they really mean, you'll find Snowdon's paper an excellent tutorial. It's available from his website in PDF format.
One of the guiding principles of science is that an experiment or study must be reproducible. In simple terms, other scientists should be able to conduct the same experiment or study and obtain the same results. In the case of secondhand smoke, this is clearly not the case. Only 9 of the 64 studies (roughly 1 in 7) suggested a positive association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer or heart disease.
Yet, the general public remains pitifully unaware of this lack of consistency in the scientific evidence.
This is not really surprising, since the public relies primarily on the press for their information. And, the press has been grossly negligent in their duty to inform the public, merely regurgitating whatever propaganda they're fed by the anti-smoker zealots. The result is a badly misinformed populace easily misled by the bullshit and bafflegab of the anti-smoker cult.
From the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health (and subsequent conferences) came the public declaration of principles, policies, and plans of the anti-smoker brigade; their manifesto. It has been institurionalized in the WHO (World Health Organization) treaty called "The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control".
Vincent-Riccardo (Rick) Di Pierri, PhD, author of “Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger: Materialism Out of Control” has an excellent synopsis of what he calls “The Godber Blueprint” on his website. It contains excerpts from documents related to the conference and an excellent commentary on the subject.
Note: A PDF version of the Rampant Antismoking book is available free on Rick's site.
“There are plenty of weapons of persuasion, of restriction, of financial penalty by price and tax increases with which we could seriously hope to reduce the consumption of cigarettes by a substantial proportion within 5 years”
