Confused? Me Too. de Colin Grainger

For the last couple of years I have bashed away at the subject of second hand smoke. I have toiled to understand the science, the epidemiology, the politics, the spin, the financial ramifications, and the agenda of those who exist only to spew hatred and division. With all the evidence, or lack of it, I find myself terribly confused about why we need a smoking ban, and more importantly, I am struggling to find justification for it. Using pure science, this ban is unjustifiable.



You might find that statement normal, coming, as it does, from a smoker of 35 years, especially as I head a group of people working hard to amend the ban. Naturally I would be outraged at being hurled outside in all weathers to smoke. My dignity has been removed, I am at more risk of illness while exposed to the poor weather, my comfort has been denied, a privelege has been ripped away, and it all happened with alarming speed.



Over these many months I have studied, at length, the science on SHS. I find it distinctly lacking in truth, and massively overblown in dogma, rhetoric, and prejudice. In many cases the anti-smokers simply lie. My search for evidence takes me across the Atlantic via the internet, where I discover bigger, fatter, more outlandish lies. Tales of tobacco containing plutonium, and exposure to 15 minutes of SHS causing heart attacks, and the continuing urban legend connecting SHS to infant mortality abound.



Back here in the UK, meanwhile, I am trying to see everyone's point of view, and I am trying my best to tack some logic onto this mad, divisive, discriminatory law.



At first I thought it was health. (The health of the work-force, that is). But knowing, as I do, that SHS has never killed anyone, anywhere, ever, I knew this couldn't be the reason. Any "deaths" you hear or read about exist only in a computer model. We at Freedom to Choose have learnt to stop any SHS debate in it's tracks using just two words: "Name three", we will ask, when we are told that SHS kills thousands of "victims" every year. Dead people have an embarrasing habit of leaving their corpses lying around. Eventually, a pathologist will have a look and will tell someone, somewhere, what it was that killed the unfortunate. However, despite asking all the agencies involved, not one of them can say, "Yep. This one was killed by second hand smoke". We have asked the DoH, ASH, the BHF, CRUK, the WHO, CDC, the EPA, our own HS&E, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly, even the beleagured NHS. Not one of them can provide any cadavers. We find this highly suspicious. The experiment to reduce "innocent bystander mortality" has failed, as it was built on dodgy foundations to begin with.



Then, I thought it must be the cost of treating smokers and their (alleged) illnesses. But it cannot be, because we (smokers) generate far more than we cost. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last 70 years has rubbed his hands with glee when contemplating how he can waste the billions sent to his coffers from tobacco tax. It is no different today. We send around £10 Billion his way every year, and we only require £1.7 Billion for treatment. When you add in all the corporation tax from tobacco companies, and all the income tax from workers involved directly, or indirectly, it comes to over £30 Billion pounds a year. Expanding the theory that we die younger only serves to further undermine the cost argument. Assuming that we live for fewer years than our non-smoking friends, and I assume nothing of the sort (that "evidence" is fabricated too), we should be thanked for dying sooner and relieving the social systems of years of payments to look after us, rather than being vilified. The experiment to prove that we cost more has failed.



It could have been that the ban fans believed that bans were good for business. Despite mountains of research available on other cities, and other countries, that blindly followed the Kalifornians in enforcing bans. That evidence is crystal clear: smoker bans bring financial and social devastation. Ask Arnie, the funds now NOT flowing into the state coffers are a staggering $100 Billion in ten years. That is a lot of state tax being Terminated. In the UK, tourism fell by a massive 10% in 2007. From a low of 56 pubs closing per month pre-ban, we now see over 200 per month closing, and the figure is increasing as winter bites. It certainly wasn't good for Ireland: they lost over 1800 pubs and introduced around 35,000 people to the joys of living on unemployment cheques. Every single Pubco in the UK has had millions wiped off their share value in the last six months. Thousands of Licensees, Tenants, and Publicans are living on a knife edge. The ban fans lied when they said anti & non smokers would fill the newly emptied pubs and clubs. They did not. They stayed at home, just like they always have. No, smoker bans are most definitely NOT good for business. The experiment to improve business has failed.



Was it a noble, but misguided attempt to reduce smoker prevalence in the UK? If it was, I can announce that it failed spectacularly. The two major tobacco companies report that share value has INCREASED by 12%. The ban in Ireland, embarassingly for them, increased the number of smokers they have by over 20,000. This despite the population fluctuations. In Scotland, the only report we have access to is one from the Grocers Federation who reported a 5% increase in tobacco sales following the ban here. Any simpleton can see that by throwing smokers outside, in full view of youngsters, it would only increase the "coolability" of smoking. If I was a marketing man for a tobacco company, I would be over the moon with the smoker bans in the UK. They have produced big fat profits for the very industry demonised by so many. We also notice that the Scottish Executive continue to invest heavily in tobacco stocks. The experiment to reduce smokers has failed, if indeed this was the reason for the ban.



Which leads us onto alcohol. If I was asked "What is the best way to reduce public alcohol consumption". I would have said, "Introduce a smoker ban". No hesitation. None whatsoever. The downside of this is that people are now drinking more at home, and they are smoking more at home. Anyone who says that this does not happen in the wake of a smoker ban is an idiot. ASH continue to say it to this day. Smokers, excluded from pubs and clubs, stay at home where they can smoke in comfort. It is axiomatic. It is obvious to all, unless your partcular crusade blinds you to the truth. The experment to shut down thousands of pubs has passed.



Could it ALL have been about a smell? Maybe. But this is easily dealt with using modern technology. New generation air management systems cope with tobacco smoke with remarkable ease. Some, using ion technology, kill billions of airborne viruses every hour of every day. I know because I bought one. This was the easiest way to provide choice for all. Or separation. Another simple to use method. Smokers pubs and clubs, and non-smokers pubs and clubs. Simple enough for a child to understand, but not the small-minded zealots, or those buffoons in government.



And so, I finally decided, that it was all about control. Having had fifty years to scare people with their nonsense about second hand smoke, and the millions of mythical deaths, and the outright lies, the fraudulent studies, and the "fact" that smoking causes this, that, and the other disease, it can only be a social engineering experiment. After all, if they can force 15 million people (and their friends) outside in sub-zero temperatures to smoke, the method has created a pathway to ever more encroachements, to even more liberties being lost, for more and more government control. And let's not forget one vital point: smoker bans, although supported by the inept, were not brought into being by them. For that we have the EU to thank. The British government merely decided to enact the most restrictive legislation they could. The experiment in population control, and unwarranted social engineering, has passed.



The EU policy, (linked to below, for your reading pleasure) was nowhere near as Draconian when it was first issued. Many countries, including Spain, used the same EU legislation and managed to retain choice for all. Their pubs and clubs are thriving, and, coincidentally, they now have 500,000 fewer smokers.



Read it if you must, but I could not read any further than the first three lines. It starts off stating that SHS/ETS is deadly. Knowing that this is the biggest lie told in the last seven decades, I was unable, and unwilling to continue.



Any document that leads with a lie, is bound to contain hundreds more.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0027en01.pdf

By Colin Grainger