Emails that I receive: Plain Packaging II

Dear Sinclair

It has come to my attention that you’ve been helping Murdoch media spread lies in regards to plain packaging.

Rupert Murdoch is a vile old man who has already been described as a person who is unfit to run an international organisation. His media propaganda rivals that of North Korea almost. People who are known as scholars should be ashamed to be part of this or any other campaign he is involved in.

Right now we have a PM who isn’t fit to run a milkbar, let alone this country. If media reporting had been more balanced, Abbott wouldn’t be PM and would be treated as the idiot he is. Which astounds me that someone who is obviously intelligent would support this criminal organisation and their lapdogs.

By supporting big tobacco, you are indirectly contributing to smoking related deaths. My only hope is that you or someone close to you suffers from this as it would be the perfect kind of Karma after your stupid, reckless comments.

This government and Murdoch media will eventually go down in history as being the worst kind of people our society has produced. Please do the right thing and make the public aware of what is really happening. Hopefully you have a conscience that will get the better of you.

Signed

Jon Bryan.

This entry was posted in Hypocrisy of progressives, Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

159 Responses to Emails that I receive: Plain Packaging II

  1. Rabz

    Rupert Murdoch is a vile old man who has already been described as a person who is unfit to run an international organisation.

    And yet the vile ol’ bugger persists. Is there no end to the man’s perfidy?

  2. does Murdoch have tobacco shares?

  3. C.L.

    The stern voice of Presbyterianism.

  4. Rabz

    Wow – I’ve just read the whole letter – the only thing missing is the line where he claims to be a conservative.

  5. entropy

    This is why once such laws have been introduced, they cannot be repealed. That they do not work does not matter. It is against the evvil Big Tobaccy so thus it is good.

    Reason is not relevant.

  6. Judith Sloan

    Sinc, you are not special. I got the letter too. Complete nutbag obviously.

  7. Judith Sloan

    And don’t you love the par about one where we or one of our loved ones DIES from smoking. Nice touch.

  8. Sinclair Davidson

    ahhh Judith!

    :)

  9. Sinclair Davidson

    I’m sure you’re not getting the abusive tweets I’m getting this morning. :)

  10. Alf

    And yet you have written a host of posts on the subject of plain packaging – to the point of protesting far too much. You may not be paid by the IPA but you hold a position and a title there. They apparently receive funding from tobacco companies and they give you a platform and whatever benefit accrues from having your name associated with theirs. It is hard to believe that you are objective on this subject. Or is it that you can’t stomach any initiative from the former government? What exactly does publishing this one letter prove one way or the other? That some of the people who disagree with you make some off-colour remarks? Is it to tar everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush? Seems quite a generalisation. Did you get any emails that did not strike this tone? Why not publish one of them?

  11. entropy

    I was wondering about that paragraph. Does ANY of your family smoke Sinc?

    I hate the PP policy, but none of my extended family smoke.

  12. H B Bear

    I have always thought that the lack of balanced media reporting cost Kevin Rudd the 2013 election. It is reassuring to find that Jon agrees with me.

    What is it with people who can’t spell John?

  13. Sinclair Davidson

    Does ANY of your family smoke Sinc?

    You mean “do” and “did” – hell yes. Both parents were chain smokers as were both parental grand parents and maternal grandfather.

  14. Gab

    Evil Murdoch – ✔

    Evil Abbott – ✔

    Evil Big Tobacco – ✔

    Typical lefty boilerplate rant. Such a shame he couldn’t work climate alarmism into his screed. Lift yer game!

  15. Crossie

    Someone who is so ostentatiously concerned about people’s health wishes others ill health. Yes, that is a person of whom I will take notice.

  16. Joe Goodacre

    Sinc,

    What do you make of the Health Department referring to Treasury excise and customs duty data which shows the volume of cigarettes cleared in 2013 was less than in 2012?

    http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-kff

    Presumably this would suggest that after the introduction of plain packaging, sales or inventory levels were adjusted to an actual or expected reduction in demand?

  17. MT Isa Miner

    Gab

    #1356463, posted on June 23, 2014 at 9:12 am

    Evil Murdoch – ✔

    Evil Abbott – ✔

    Evil Big Tobacco – ✔

    Typical lefty boilerplate rant. Such a shame he couldn’t work climate alarmism into his screed. Lift yer game!

    Mark him down, Gab and make him do an emu parade after a lefty park rally.

  18. Judith Sloan

    Both my paternal grandparents smoked and died at 88 and 89. Given both born in nineteenth century, a great achievement.

  19. Sinclair Davidson

    Alf – to argue that I hold the views that I do is due to my association with the IPA is a selection bias error. I am associated with the IPA because of the views I hold, and held prior to my association with them.

    Plain packaging is interesting for several reasons:
    1. I hate the nanny state.
    2. Annoying lefties gives me pleasure.
    3. It is bad policy.
    4. One last chance to stick it up the Rudd-Gillard government.
    5. Government stole intellectual property – thin end of the wedge.
    6. Smokers are a persecuted minority.

    So you are quite correct to point to my many and mixed motives.

  20. Tom

    Where do they dig up such bigoted poorly educated pillocks? He’s almost as stupid as our troll Alf.

  21. Dan

    And yet you have written a host of posts on the subject of plain packaging – to the point of protesting far too much. You may not be paid by the IPA but you hold a position and a title there. They apparently receive funding from tobacco companies and they give y

    Plain packaging will obviously drive the price of premium cigarettes down and subsequently increase smoking rates especially amongst the young. So what’s your point exactly?

  22. Crossie

    When you sin a saint would say “I will pray that you see the light”.

    When a frothing activist disapproves of you he says “I hope you and yours die”. Yet he imagines himself a saint who fight the good fight.

  23. Gab

    Quite so, Mt Isa Miner. And he’ll be made to do so in double-time as he forgot to mention the Evil IPA.

  24. Sinclair Davidson

    What do you make of the Health Department referring to Treasury excise and customs duty data which shows the volume of cigarettes cleared in 2013 was less than in 2012?

    Not according to the actual budget papers.

  25. blogstrop

    Right now we have a PM who isn’t fit to run a milkbar …

    But he doesn’t abuse milkbar owners over their pies, like some we could name.

  26. Bruce of Newcastle

    Its common for lefty governments to ignore or actively hide data which show their policies are having the opposite effect of what is intended.

    It is also common for lefties to hold two diametrically opposed positions simultaneously. In this case smoking of tobacco (bad) and smoking of marijuana (good), especially when the latter is almost certainly worse in medical impact than the former.

    Thirdly they seem to like policies which give incentive to people to break the law – chop chop consumption appears to be increasing just as you would expect from a policy which removes branding and increases excise.

    Then you have people like this guy who projects ferociously, since the ABC, Fairfax and the Guardian produce endless propaganda from his side of politics which is unsupported by data, which they refuse to discuss, and which if you try to correct them they accuse you of being a racist-sexist-nazi-antigay-fluffy bunny hater. I am absolutely fed up with the pure unadulterated hypocrisy of guys like this.

  27. Joe Goodacre

    The budget papers show dollars – the Health Department website appears to be talking about volume (clearances).

    It would be handy having an official source from Treasury. Now that Treasury has released this comment (apparently to the Health Department), surely they’ll be pressured to confirm those figures since as you say, they present a different picture than the budget papers from a dollar perspective.

    The fact the Health Department has jumped in with this nugget is an interesting one in of itself – a bureaucrat taking up the fight perhaps?

  28. blogstrop

    Alf is “laboring” under the misapprehension that da IPA = evil. Go listen to the RC for a while Alf, then report back on some real corruption by people associated and sharing ideologies with the former government.

  29. incoherent rambler

    Both my paternal grandparents smoked and died at 88 and 89. Given both born in nineteenth century, a great achievement.

    for me grandparents and great uncles/aunts 88, 87, 77, 104, 93 ,94, 99.

    But they would have lived sooo much longer if they had not smoked.

  30. Tom

    Hammy wrote that.

    I think you’re right, Kae. The signs are unmistakeable. How does he keep track of all his aliases? It must be a real bitch running all those Spacechook accounts.

  31. Leo G

    By supporting big tobacco, you are indirectly contributing to smoking related deaths.

    Jon’s conviction is that only Big Government should benefit from smoking-related deaths.

  32. Sinclair Davidson

    Joe – I don’t think Treasury has that data. The ATO and the Department of Finance have the data. My understanding is that the time series is very noisy and a long series would be required to determine any trend. Actually getting enough data would be the problem and via the FOI process quite expensive.

    In the ideal world we would access an excel spreadsheet with data on it – but I suspect if that spreadsheet even exists, they’re not going to readily hand it over.

  33. Joe Goodacre

    From the following Treasury publication in Feburary 2013 – POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW:
    25 PER CENT TOBACCO EXCISE INCREASE

    65. Data on tobacco clearances is collected by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs and Border Protection Service). Tobacco is no longer grown in Australia. Tobacco manufacturing in Australia uses imported loose tobacco and the excise on this tobacco is collected by the ATO after manufacture. Customs and Border Protection collects duty on imported, ready to sell tobacco. The term ‘clearance’ refers to the product being entered into home consumption and broadly covers all tobacco sold legally in Australia.
    66. Clearances of tobacco through the ATO and Customs and Border Protection cannot be presented in detail due to taxpayer confidentiality.

  34. Gab

    Recent figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) show that total consumption of tobacco and cigarettes in the March quarter 2014 is the lowest ever recorded, as measured by estimated expenditure on tobacco products:

    $5.135 billion in September 1959;
    $3.508 billion in December 2012; and
    $3.405 billion in March 2014.3

    Did you notice that, Joe? Despite increasing population and increased taxes and increased base pricing, smoking rates were falling well before the introduction of the plain packaging farce.

  35. Rabz

    Hammy wrote that.

    LOL. Although ‘wrote’ might be gilding the lily, somewhat.

  36. Joe Goodacre

    How Treasury would remove the continuing effects of the 25% increase in excise is beyond me.

  37. Sinclair Davidson

    Joe – I’m not sure what that shows. Tobacco consumption after new year falls every year and certainly falls after every increase in excise – the challenge for the government is to show that consumption fell after the introduction of plain packaging. That is the information that is missing in the entire debate.

    There are officials in the Department of Finance and the ATO who know exactly how many cigarettes are had excise duty paid on them – yet that information has not been released.

  38. Alf

    Plain packaging is interesting for several reasons:
    1. I hate the nanny state.
    2. Annoying lefties gives me pleasure.
    3. It is bad policy.
    4. One last chance to stick it up the Rudd-Gillard government.
    5. Government stole intellectual property – thin end of the wedge.
    6. Smokers are a persecuted minority.

    Only two of those reasons seem based on anything other than emotion your your political views. Perhaps it was less the desire to create a nanny state than to improve health outcomes. Annoying lefties gives you pleasure – sounds pretty juvenile to me. As for sticking it up the previous govt. I’m sure you’ll be doing it again as often as possible. I’d be amazed if this was really your last chance. Smokers are a persecuted minority – what would you do to improve their situation, reinstate smoking in offices, on public transport anywhere people want? As for the intellectual property/thin end of the wedge argument, you would need a lot more evidence that this was a road any govt. would be travelling down more often that putting plain packaging on ciggies.

    Alf is “laboring” under the misapprehension that da IPA = evil. Go listen to the RC for a while Alf, then report back on some real corruption by people associated and sharing ideologies with the former government.

    Show me where I used the word evil, or suggested it? I have listened to the RC, so far no credible evidence against Gillard or Shorten. They need to keep trying. In any case, I never claimed or mentioned corruption – the RC has nothing to do with plain packaging. Nice try though.

  39. Joe Goodacre

    Gab – the graph is well known, see Figure 1 in the link below.

    http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-kff

    The problem with an argument that says tobacco rates were falling therefore any new fall must be related to previous changes, is that it’s based on the assumption that there is no limit to the decline in smoking rates that can be attributed to any of these previous policies. That’s possible, but seems unlikely to me because of diminishing returns.

  40. Gab

    Increasing costs and increasing awareness of the detrimental effects on health is the reason smoking rates have fallen. The colour of the ciggy packet has nothing to do with it.

  41. Joe Goodacre

    The challenge for the government is to show that consumption fell after the introduction of plain packaging.

    That seems a higher standard than most people are probably looking for. I reckon people are probably only looking to see that the problem isn’t made worse (i.e. smoking rates or volumes increasing). Wrongly, there’s not a lot of love for the smokers or the tobacco industry out there.

    There are officials in the Department of Finance and the ATO who know exactly how many cigarettes are had excise duty paid on them – yet that information has not been released.

    I agree – but the note on the Health Department website would suggest caution against concluding plain packaging failed because Treasury might pop up with another review having accessed that data from the ATO and Customs which would go against the claim that plain packaging has been increasing smoking rates or individual consumption.

  42. 1234

    None of the IPA shills including Davidson have been honest interlocutors. This latest effort – look at this vile letter – is the latest effort to distract attention from the release of Treasury data on volume. Good try, but a fail

  43. Joe Goodacre

    Gab, maybe.

    I wouldn’t make that call myself.

    It’s quite possible that young people having developed no brand attachment, see people so hooked on something that they take it from a plain package with pictures of rotten teeth on it and decide not to take up smoking.

  44. Sinclair Davidson

    I’m sure you’ll be doing it again as often as possible. I’d be amazed if this was really your last chance.

    :) Okay. Me too. Surely they will keep giving. Wayne Swan is writing an autobiography.

  45. Aristogeiton

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1356476, posted on June 23, 2014 at 9:25 am
    What do you make of the Health Department referring to Treasury excise and customs duty data which shows the volume of cigarettes cleared in 2013 was less than in 2012?

    Not according to the actual budget papers.

    Since excise is charged per stick, the figures for excise collected could settle this. But they were removed from the budget. I don’t know where Treasury got those clearance figures bandied about by the Health Department. That should be Customs job. In any event, if they represent clearance events, they are meaningless.

  46. Gab

    I know of three young people who have recently started smoking, they don’t smoke a pack a day. Yet. The pictures and the colour of the packet made no difference to them.

  47. Sinclair Davidson

    People seem to smoke marijuana without brand attachment – why shouldn’t that now apply to cigarettes?

  48. Mr Rusty

    Well what a brilliantly composed argument.
    “You’re a liar and Murdoch evil, Abbott evil, IPA evil, tobacco evil.”
    Not a single argument refuted with facts or evidence, not a single coherent point raised and the icing on the cake of wishing death upon a family member.
    The irony is that the only time the totalitarian in me comes out is when I read lefty shite like this and deem the best solution is to introduce their toxic heads to a pointy bit of lead travelling at high velocity. (NADT)

  49. Joe Goodacre

    This latest effort – look at this vile letter – is the latest effort to distract attention from the release of Treasury data on volume.

    There’s no release yet – that’s the point.

    Show us the link to an official Treasury report – not a Health Department website saying ‘someone from Treasury told me’ and then firmer conclusions can be made.

  50. Sinclair Davidson

    Alf – you’re suffering from ‘motivitis’ – my motives for making the arguments I do are irrelevant. Are my actual arguments correct or incorrect?

  51. Gab

    People seem to smoke marijuana without brand attachment – why shouldn’t that now apply to cigarettes?

    Do people still mix tobacco in with the weed?

  52. Joe Goodacre

    A good question.

    Possibly because the benefit is largely to satisfy cravings for the product, whereas weed itself induces good feelings/relaxes.

    Young kid look at weed and want to try that – regardless of brand.

    I don’t think tobacco has the same effect – they look at people who appear addicted, consuming a product whose function is the satisfaction of that addicction and they don’t want to be like them.

    Brands might be more important with tobacco because the look is a large part of the appeal of the product, as opposed to weed which induces a high in of itself.

  53. Mr Rusty

    It is also common for lefties to hold two diametrically opposed positions simultaneously. In this case smoking of tobacco (bad) and smoking of marijuana (good), especially when the latter is almost certainly worse in medical impact than the former.

    I wonder how quickly the left would volte face over marijuana if it were legalised and Big Tobacco cornered the market and made loads of da evil profits?

  54. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1356514, posted on June 23, 2014 at 10:01 am
    This latest effort – look at this vile letter – is the latest effort to distract attention from the release of Treasury data on volume.

    There’s no release yet – that’s the point.

    Show us the link to an official Treasury report – not a Health Department website saying ‘someone from Treasury told me’ and then firmer conclusions can be made.

    Haven’t you changed your tune:

    Joe Goodacre
    #1356380, posted on June 23, 2014 at 7:13 am
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/plain-packaging-pushes-cigarette-sales-down-20140622-3amd8.html

    Treasury has released actual number of cigarettes sold in 2013 – it was down on a per capita basis by about 5% from 2012.

    The theory was sound (that plain packaging would encourage consumption by replacing expensive brands with low cost alternatives) but the data appears to throw a curveball against that conclusion.

  55. steve

    Wayne Swan is writing an autobiography.

    Will it be called “Dancing in the dark”?

  56. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1356519, posted on June 23, 2014 at 10:05 am
    A good question.

    Possibly because the benefit is largely to satisfy cravings for the product, whereas weed itself induces good feelings/relaxes.

    Why do you think people smoke, idiot? Because they have to ‘satisfy cravings’ for a drug they don’t enjoy consuming?

  57. Toiling Mass

    What is it with people who can’t spell John

    ?

    They want to show they are unique – and this is the standard, accepted way other people called John show they are unique.

  58. Joe Goodacre

    A clearance event is not a direct measure of consumption but does appear to be an indirect measure of volume – refer to comment #1356490, posted on June 23, 2014 at 9:39 am.

  59. cuckoo

    As moonbat rants go, it’s not bad, but he loses points for not mentioning his ‘grandchildren’ (hypothetical or actual) and the world they will inherit, yada yada. That’s Moonbat 101.

  60. Joe Goodacre

    Tune is the same – Treasury data may throw a curveball to the conclusion plain packaging has increased consumption.

  61. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1356530, posted on June 23, 2014 at 10:11 am
    A clearance event is not a direct measure of consumption but does appear to be an indirect measure of volume – refer to comment #1356490, posted on June 23, 2014 at 9:39 am.

    Who are you talking to? I don’t know what the figures are, but they appear to be clearance events. This is not a measure of volume.

  62. 1234

    True, with a minister like Fiona Nash might not be wise to trust the Health website.

  63. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1356535, posted on June 23, 2014 at 10:12 am
    Tune is the same – Treasury data may throw a curveball to the conclusion plain packaging has increased consumption.

    Jesus, you’ve bastardised that metaphor. Or personified a ‘conclusion’. Or something. Learn to write.

  64. Andrew

    4. One last chance to stick it up the Rudd-Gillard government.

    I hardly think it’s the last. Why just last week they were opening themselves up to a fresh new round of hilarity by:

    a) Dog-whistling to the neocomms by dropping strong hints that they would drop border control measures after the election (but couldn’t announce it before) – that’s the only possible interpretation of the Circus Caucus resolution.
    b) Marles then pissing his pants and cancelling his Bolt Report appearance because he “couldn’t get babysitting.”

    I’m guessing we will be finding new stuff the hapless RGR grubiment fucked up till at least 2025.

  65. A Lurker

    It’s such a pity that modern technology such as the home computer is wasted on ingrates such as Jon Bryan.

  66. Joe Goodacre

    A clearance declaration for alcohol or tobacco has the additional requirement to disclose quantity.

    http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/self_assessed_clearance_declarations.pdf

    From the earlier Treasury report from Feb 2013 – The term ‘clearance’ refers to the product being entered into home consumption

    http://ris.dpmc.gov.au/2013/05/20/25-per-cent-tobacco-excise-increase-post-implementation-review-treasury/

    It is a volume measure – not a value measure.

    Since all tobacco is imported into Australia, it is another indirect measure of the size of the market.

  67. notafan

    I love the Murchoch Big Tobacco Big Oil. IPA meme , is there anyone else who is an instant member of the Bigs ?
    Big Pineapple, Big Banana, Big Merino etc.
    One of my kids now works for Big Oil and was asked to speak to some disadvantaged students re careers etc, was pretty stunned when she realised the Big Oil thing was an issue.

  68. Infidel Tiger

    Smoking and your thoughts on it are the true litmus test to whether or not you believe in freedom.

    Australia is a fascist shit splattered toilet.

  69. Joe Goodacre

    Smoking and your thoughts on it are the true litmus test to whether or not you believe in freedom.

    Maybe if you’re a smoker.

    The really wealthy probably think the true test is low to no taxation.

    Offensive people proably think free speech is the true test.

    Drug addicts probably think it’s whether drugs are legal or not.

    Gun owners probably think it’s gun control laws.

    What’s the point of drumming it down to one test.

  70. Infidel Tiger

    Goodacre, I will refrain from calling you a stupid cnut because it’s obvious you have Aspergers.

    Consider yourself lucky.

  71. ar

    People who are known as scholars

    Pythonesque…

  72. Jon Bryan, son of Bob Ellis!

    Where’s the usual IPA slurs, though?

  73. His media propaganda rivals that of North Korea almost.

    It’s the ‘almost’ that’s so hurtful.

  74. Please do the right thing and make the public aware of what is really happening.

    Yes, Sinc.

    Please continue to do this.

    As you’ve been doing.

    Go right ahead.

  75. I’m sure you’re not getting the abusive tweets I’m getting this morning. :)

    Screen grabs! Screen grabs!

    Go on. You know you want to.

  76. H B Bear

    I’m guessing we will be finding new stuff the hapless RGR grubiment fucked up till at least 2025.

    Sounds about right. It will be interesting to see whether historical revisionists such as Mavis Bramston and the usual suspects will be able to rewrite Gillard’s legacy like they did with The Great Man. While you might disagree with their politics completely, it is arguable that Gough was actually motivated by a genuine desire to change the Australian society in ways he thought positive. I’m not sure you could ever say that about Gillard.

    Gillard revisionists will obviously seek to claim the unfunded NDIS and Gonski programs as her legacy. I think Pyne will see off Gonski and while the NDIS is a bi-partisan program, it is showing all the signs of becoming a hugely complex, expensive administrative exercise that may or may not help the disabled.

  77. lotocoti

    Wouldn’t a decrease in imports by tonnage prove the efficacy of Nanny von Roxon’s grand scheme?
    The only decrease I see reflects the end of Australian manufactured darts.

  78. Alf

    Alf – you’re suffering from ‘motivitis’ – my motives for making the arguments I do are irrelevant. Are my actual arguments correct or incorrect?

    I disagree, your motives a very relevant because they inform what you have to say. I also disagree that you made any arguments – wanting to annoy lefties, smash the nanny state etc are not arguments.

  79. Joe Goodacre

    Are people here for or against smoking bans in public places?

    Personally I’m for it.

    In our home people don’t smoke – I consider it a nuisance.

    I don’t have that ability to exercise that preference in public spaces. The only way that preference is exercised is that we vote on how to share that space.

    Since smokers are a minority, if the majority wants to use that pulbic space without the nuisance of smoking, I don’t see anything wrong with that other than the original sin of having public spaces to begin with.

  80. Rococo Liberal

    Offensive people proably think free speech is the true test.

    Then why are lefties always denying that freedom of speech is important? They are continually nasty, stupid and offensive.

    I suppose ‘offensivve’ is in the eyes of the beholder. Lefties find right-wingers offensive because right wingers usually win the argument with logic and not emotion.

    Each side is offensive to the other, but only one side seems to think that being ‘offensive’ is a reason to
    censor the other.

  81. candy

    There’s a lot of aggressiveness in that email. I’m thinking it’s from a person of more senior years by the use of the word “milkbar”?

  82. Joe goodacre

    Alf,

    Motives are only relevant if you rely on faith – - ‘I share ‘X’ motives therefore I attach weight to their arguments’.

    If you don’t mind what is correct, it doesn’t matter who says it or what their agenda is. Either it is substantiated or it’s not. Either it’s plausible or it’s not. The third possible category – not knowing anything about it, so not having strong opinions either way.

  83. Mr Rusty

    I’m sure you’re not getting the abusive tweets I’m getting this morning.

    I would brace yourself for a rough week Sinc, Judith et al. One week till the new Senate and the lefties are getting wound up and stirring like a cuckoo clock drowning in the vortex of a swirling soy latte. After yet more failed predictions and fictional ‘news’ around the successful overseas trip and clinging to the life raft of ‘Canadia’ they are launching a final salvo of dementedness, you could feel it building up last week.
    I think they are far more terrified of the new Senate than the Coalition. The Greens will have no influence, they know the Carbon Tax is gone regardless and the only thing they have a chance of salvaging is the dropping of the GP co-payment. PDS and RDS (power and relevance deprivation syndrome) is driving them potty and in 7 days it smacks them in the face. Just remember, underneath all the bile and lunacy they are in a world of hurt and it’s going to get a lot worse. Revel in it.

  84. Joe goodacre

    True Rococo Liberal

  85. Sinclair Davidson

    I also disagree that you made any arguments – wanting to annoy lefties, smash the nanny state etc are not arguments.

    Indeed – and you’ll notice those are not the arguments I have made.

  86. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1356546, posted on June 23, 2014 at 10:22 am
    A clearance declaration for alcohol or tobacco has the additional requirement to disclose quantity.

    http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/self_assessed_clearance_declarations.pdf

    From the earlier Treasury report from Feb 2013 – The term ‘clearance’ refers to the product being entered into home consumption

    http://ris.dpmc.gov.au/2013/05/20/25-per-cent-tobacco-excise-increase-post-implementation-review-treasury/

    It is a volume measure – not a value measure.

    Since all tobacco is imported into Australia, it is another indirect measure of the size of the market.

    Listen you slow witted shit. This is what the Health Department said:

    Tobacco consumption
    The Commonwealth Treasury has further advised that tobacco clearances (including excise and customs duty) fell by 3.4% in 2013 relative to 2012 when tobacco plain packaging was introduced.

    Clearances are an indicator of tobacco volumes in the Australian market.

    Do you know what ‘volume’ means? This appears to be a measure of clearance events. It is not a measure of volume. This is because there is a difference between the volume of a shipping container and a post parcel. Of course the volume of excisable tobacco must be declared (as sticks or 0.8g equivalent), but only where the amount is greater than $1000. But volume is clearly not what is measured here.

    The entire discussion about plain packaging revolves around the volume of tobacco consumed. It could be reconstructed if data for the value of excise collected was provided with suitable granularity. But the only data we have are Treasury forecasts. Which don’t support your muddle-headed argument.

  87. Chris

    Did you notice that, Joe? Despite increasing population and increased taxes and increased base pricing, smoking rates were falling well before the introduction of the plain packaging farce.

    Its probably worth remembering that the recent public debate only started because of an article in the Australian that claimed that cigarette sales had actually increased after plain packaging was introduced. There was no nuance about say the decrease in cigaratte sales being less, just a very clear claim they had instead increased.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/labors-plain-packaging-fails-as-cigarette-sales-rise/story-fn59nokw-1226945123085#

    I wonder if they’ll ever admit they were wrong?

  88. Sinclair Davidson

    Clearances are an indicator of tobacco volumes in the Australian market.

    That is a strange thing to say, because in this FOI email the Treasury says:

    Excise and customs clearances are different from consumption data, as the taxing point is not the point of final sale and provides no guidance as to the location of smokers.

  89. Gab

    Here Chris:

    LET’S start with basic precepts, so the ABC’s Media Watch can follow. The Weekend Australian carries no flame for smoking or smokers. Smoking kills. We are, however, vitally interested in public policy, its implementation and its effectiveness. Policies driven by activism rather than logic can fail to deliver their intended results, and lead to unintended consequences. A policy that angers or even injures tobacco companies doesn’t necessarily produce public health benefits. The former government and its health minister, Nicola Roxon, said plain packaging would reduce the number of smokers and the amount they smoked.

    Perhaps they didn’t understand markets, because on the evidence available so far this has not been the case. Smoking is declining, driven strongly by excise price pressures. But in the year after the introduction of plain packaging it is possible that more cigarettes were sold and it is certainly the case that the rate of decline in tobacco consumption slowed. Plain packaging might yet work; it is early days. But with excises increasing it will be difficult to isolate the cause of future declines. Reputable economists predicted a likely repercussion from plain packaging would be increased price competition. Cigarette marketing has been reliant on brand reputation to uphold margins and, without branding, the main battleground is price. There is clear evidence of heavy discounting. As Henry Ergas explains in Inquirer, price sensitivity, particularly for younger smokers, means cheaper smokes can lead to higher quantities sold. So plain packaging might have led to the opposite outcome to the one intended.

    This is the sort of public policy scrutiny to which this newspaper is pleased to turn sharp minds. Ergas has taught at Harvard. Judith Sloan, our contributing economics editor, is a former productivity commissioner. And Adam Creighton is a former RBA economist. Against them the ABC runs a former adviser to Julia Gillard, Stephen Koukoulas, who markets himself as an “economic visionary” and is out of step with the RBA and Treasury in arguing the nation does not face “any serious need to repair the budget”. Our story was right. The ABC needs to get off Twitter and check facts.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/smoke-gets-in-your-eyes/story-e6frg71x-1226961764802

  90. Some_History

    Joe Goldacre: “In our home people don’t smoke – I consider it a nuisance.”

    Goody for you, Joe. What you’re going to have to understand is that this is a recent phenomenon.

    From Bayer & Stuber
    “…..In the last half century the cigarette has been transformed. The fragrant has become foul. . . . An emblem of attraction has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.”
    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886

    This change from fragrant to foul has not come from the smoke which has remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one. Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory propaganda warps perception. Ambient tobacco smoke was essentially a background phenomenon. Now exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS) has been fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon (if not worse) like, say, sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they “can’t stand” the “stench” of smoke, or the smoke is “overwhelming”; there are now those, hand cupped over mouth, that attempt to avoid even a whiff of dilute remnants of smoke – even outdoors. There are those that claim that, arriving from a night out, they had to put all of their clothes in the washing machine and scrape the “smoke” off their skin in the shower. There are even those that claim they are “allergic” to tobacco smoke. Yet there are no allergens (proteins) in tobacco smoke to be allergic to.

    And it didn’t stop with just the smoke. Cigarette butts – heretofore unheard of – suddenly became a “monumental problem” too – akin to improvised explosive devices, requiring drastic action. These are all recent phenomena born of toxic propaganda; it is an expanding hysteria. It says nothing about the physical properties/propensities of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization. Typical symptoms of anxiety disorder are heart palpitations, chest tightness, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, etc. These capnophobics (smokephobics) are no different to those irrationally attempting to avoid cracks in the pavement lest their mental world come crashing down. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda. It is the antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists and their toxic mentality and propaganda that have long been in need of urgent scrutiny.

  91. blogstrop

    You may not be paid by the IPA but you hold a position and a title there. They apparently receive funding from tobacco companies

    Tobacco companies in leftist-speak = evil, at least in this context, or when climate change sceptics can be linked to them.

    Never mind that idiot hipster lefties are still smoking like trains of old.

  92. Some_History

    Nonsmokers are simply people that do not smoke. There are nonsmokers that like the aroma of tobacco smoke and there are plenty more that are not fussed one way or the other. Antismokers, on the other hand, are a different mentality altogether. Antismokers hate [tobacco] smoke/smoking/smokers. There’s even a name that’s been given to this hatred of smoke that probably originated in the antismoking fanaticism in America a century ago – “misocapnist”. Even with the antismoking barrage of the last 30 years, antismokers are still a small group. So, to get their way with legislators they typically hijack the entire nonsmokers group, pretending to speak for all nonsmokers. The history of antismoking is that antismokers will hijack anything – science, religion, history – to depict their bizarre hatred as “normal”.

    Goodacre: “I don’t have that ability to exercise that preference in public spaces.”

    Joe, what’s so special about your preferences? Even the antismoking nut cases that started the current antismoking crusade back in the 1970s understood that they couldn’t get smoking bans enacted simply because they didn’t like the smell of tobacco smoke. That’s why they went to great lengths to manufacture ambient tobacco smoke into a “health” issue for nonsmokers (see Godber Blueprint). But this concerned the indoors, questionable as the “evidence” was. But the outdoors is another matter. It’s next to impossible to even contrive exposure to quickly diluting smoke outdoors into a health issue. There’s hardly anything to measure let alone demonstrate a health issue.

    So, Joe, all you’re saying is that you want smoking banned outdoors simply because YOU don’t like the smell and probably as a result of a few decades of inflammatory propaganda. Well, that wasn’t a good enough reason 30 years ago and is still not a good enough reason now. Things don’t get banned simply because some people don’t like something.

  93. Sinclair Davidson

    I have – that is a very strange article. I might post on it later today.

  94. Aristogeiton

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1356611, posted on June 23, 2014 at 11:32 am
    Clearances are an indicator of tobacco volumes in the Australian market.

    That is a strange thing to say, because in this FOI email the Treasury says:

    Excise and customs clearances are different from consumption data, as the taxing point is not the point of final sale and provides no guidance as to the location of smokers.

    Are tobacco products ever cleared in transit through Australia? Since we don’t produce any, they are not cleared on export.

  95. Some_History

    For those not familiar, I highly recommend reading the Godber Blueprint (it’s the long page at http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ).
    It highlights that the current antismoking nut cases are exactly like their fanatical predecessors, particularly in America and Germany early last century. Their concern is not with facts but with attention-grabbing slogans, maintaining a high media profile, monopolizing all discourse on smoking, avoiding questioning, and exploiting “appeal to authority” to the hilt.

    Moralizing zealots have a very limited repertoire – fear and hate-mongering. When the zealots are let loose, they will typically deteriorate into terrorizing the public into conformity. And the terrorizing doesn’t rely on facts. Zealots have a very particular, exaggerated, highly-inflammatory vocabulary, e.g., “kill”, “death”, “poison”, “toxic”, “save”.

    For example, someone has put together “10 Outrageous Claims Made By The Temperance Movement”
    http://listverse.com/2014/01/05/10-outrageous-claims-made-by-the-temperance-movement/

    This inflammatory trash was pounded into schoolchildren by the Department of Scientific Temperance. It’s a terrorizing to conformity. There was nothing scientific about the DST. Also noteworthy is that the DST was as anti-tobacco as it was anti-alcohol. The more influential physician-led Eugenics movement was also anti-tobacco/alcohol, including outrageous health claims. Both sought a tobacco variant of Prohibition. It was an exploiting of “appeal to authority” – religious/medical.

  96. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1356582, posted on June 23, 2014 at 11:07 am
    [...]
    Since smokers are a minority, if the majority wants to use that pulbic space without the nuisance of smoking, I don’t see anything wrong with that other than the original sin of having public spaces to begin with.

    Fascist Joe’s back with his majoritarian totalitarianism. Joe would support unlimited ostracism by a simple majority vote.

  97. Toiling Mass

    You may not be paid by the IPA but you hold a position and a title there. They apparently receive funding from tobacco companies

    So? The ABC is funded by taxpayers, yet remains implaccably hostile to them.

  98. Ellen of Tasmania

    They are not arguing against this because of the cost of smoking to society or any personal damage to individuals, but because it’s the current fashionable thing to object to.

    If it could be shown that a behaviour/lifestyle that was popular and fashionable was actually more costly and damaging to individuals and society, would Jon be objecting to that? Of course not.

    Cool-shame is alive and well in our culture. Logic, not so much.

  99. Some_History

    Consider the “health warning” Smoking Kills

    All of the evidence against smoking is statistical in nature. There are very definite rules governing how statistical information is disseminated. These rules are routinely violated, abused, mangled, butchered by antismoking activists. As mentioned, zealots use a particular, exaggerated, highly-inflammatory vocabulary.

    Honestly depicting statistical information doesn’t have sufficient “terrorizing” value for zealots.

    I can point you to a document (see Godber Blueprint) that instructs activists not to use statistical information, but to use such terms as “kill” which go far beyond the implications of the underlying data.

    Working Papers in Support of the 8th World Conference on Tobacco or Health: Building a Tobacco-Free World
    March 30 – April 3, 1992

    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    (excerpts)
    Use strong direct wording such as
    Smoking kills
    Smoking is addictive
    Smoking causes lung cancer
    Smoking causes heart disease
    Smoking damages your lungs
    Smoking harms the fetus
    Smoking hurts your children
    Don’t use statements that condone any
    form of smoking, imply only a chance
    of contracting disease, or attribute the
    statement to a third party . Don’t use :
    “Don’t smoke too much for health’s sake . ”
    “Smoking may cause
    “According to the government . . . . . “

    (p.14)
    Consider skull and crossbones or other
    strong visual displays .

    (p.15)

    We’re not dealing with facts here. It’s vile activism. It’s the production of generalized slogans for terrorizing effect.

    This particular document makes for interesting reading:
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hoc28a99

  100. Some_History

    The use of “skull and crossbones” was also suggested early last century:

    “….an anti-cigarette activist proposed that each package be stamped with the word “poison” in capital letters above a skull and crossbones.”
    [In “Cigarette Wars: The ‘Triumph’ of the Little White Slaver” (1998) by Cassandra Tate. Google the following combination - “the endless war on tobacco” “seattletimes” – which should bring up a summary article of the book at the Seattle Times]

    Current antismoking fanatics are exactly like their predecessors.

  101. Aristogeiton

    Some_History
    #1356662, posted on June 23, 2014 at 12:26 pm
    [...]
    We’re not dealing with facts here. It’s vile activism. It’s the production of generalized slogans for terrorizing effect.

    Too true. The Cancer Council continue to lie about vaping. Anti-smoking organizations everywhere are against it. And it’s safe. Why? Because they are terrified that the game might be up if there is a safe, legal way of consuming nicotine which provides the same hit as cigarettes.

  102. .

    We’re not dealing with facts here. It’s vile activism. It’s the production of generalized slogans for terrorizing effect.

    Utterly true. Smoking has many health and mental health benefits at a safe level (which is low, however).

  103. Joe Goodacre

    Some_History #1356618, posted on June 23, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Interesting but irrelevant when talking about an individual’s preferences.

    Joe, what’s so special about your preferences?

    Nothing – I don’t pretend there is. If a majority of people wanted to smoke in public spaces I would accept that as a cost of public spaces (and would vote to remove public spaces).

    So, Joe, all you’re saying is that you want smoking banned outdoors simply because YOU don’t like the smell and probably as a result of a few decades of inflammatory propaganda.

    Yes. I don’t like the smell and the littering that is often associated with it. So people who find it a nuisance aren’t allowed to have a preference and have no say in how public spaces are used?

    If it was private property our preferences would be expressed by how much we would be willing to pay for the use of that property.

    Since it’s public property, if we can’t vote to ban something we don’t like then you’re saying that myself and many others are stuck with your preferences.

    Like it or not, democracy is the next best (but not great) thing to private property in accomodating people’s preferences.

  104. goatjam

    “Smoking and your thoughts on it are the true litmus test to whether or not you believe in freedom.”

    “Maybe if you’re a smoker.”

    Wrong, it is precisely because I am a non-smoker yet I still abhor the treatment smokers receive from nanny state fascists such as yourself that proves I believe in freedom.

    Your attempt to imply that your own non-smoking status coupled with your anti-smoking stance is somehow proof that you are not biased is just ridiculous. It indicates the opposite.

  105. .

    Chris
    #1356609, posted on June 23, 2014 at 11:30 am
    Did you notice that, Joe? Despite increasing population and increased taxes and increased base pricing, smoking rates were falling well before the introduction of the plain packaging farce.

    Its probably worth remembering that the recent public debate only started because of an article in the Australian that claimed that cigarette sales had actually increased after plain packaging was introduced. There was no nuance about say the decrease in cigaratte sales being less, just a very clear claim they had instead increased.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/labors-plain-packaging-fails-as-cigarette-sales-rise/story-fn59nokw-1226945123085#

    I wonder if they’ll ever admit they were wrong?

    They’re not wrong so they’ll never admit that your lies are true, professional ALP concern troll.

  106. .

    http://mises.org/daily/481/Smoking-and-Property-Rights

    Individuals make their choices based on the perceived benefits and costs. The key point is that if an individual makes a decision voluntarily, then they expected the marginal benefits to outweigh the costs. Now, being wrong about a decision ex post does not negate the fact that the individual made a rational choice ex ante. In plain English: if a person knowingly and willingly went to a smoke-filled bar, then they believed the benefits of the environment were greater than the costs of breathing in and smelling like smoke.

    Smoking is a moral issue for many people. What gets neglected is the fact that an establishment’s right to decide for itself on its smoking policy is also a moral issue. The business owner is harmed when the government interferes with his business. It is astonishing and just plain arrogant for people to think that they have a right to eat at a restaurant or drink and socialize at a bar. I can’t seem to find any reference to these rights in the Constitution.

    In a free-market, smoking and nonsmoking establishments would be allocated based on the demands of consumers. Economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out that consumers have the power in a market economy. Some entrepreneurs (maybe smokers) would open nonsmoking restaurants or bars if they believed that they could maximize profits in this type of environment. This would attract potential employees who value a smoke-free environment or who believe they could earn more by working in a smoke-free establishment.

    On the other hand, there would be entrepreneurs (maybe nonsmokers) who would want to cater to a smoking clientele. These establishments would attract potential employees who either smoke themselves or do not care about working in a smoking environment as much as they care about making good tips.

  107. Joe Goodacre

    Sinc,

    That is a strange thing to say, because in this FOI email the Treasury says:

    Excise and customs clearances are different from consumption data, as the taxing point is not the point of final sale and provides no guidance as to the location of smokers.

    I don’t see that those statements are incompatible.

    One is talking about clearances measuring the volume of tobacco in Australia (the claim clearances track volume).

    The Treasury’s email is talking about not having data on where the product is consumed.

  108. .

    You might be able to get special run data on this stuff. Depends how much the ABS believes they can charge for it.

  109. Pedro

    “Since smokers are a minority, if the majority wants to use that pulbic space without the nuisance of smoking, I don’t see anything wrong with that other than the original sin of having public spaces to begin with.”

    This hardly a fascist statement. Lots of laws are made to control what is able to be done in public space. The smoking ban in the Queen St mall, for instance, is hardly a massive breach of civil liberties. I think the arguments for and against such bans are marginal, but that does not make the ban wrong or oppressive.

    The chart on the Health website linked in Peter Martin’s article does not seem to support the headline. At the same time, if the industry claims an increase in smoking then both could be wrong. If there is a long-term trend in smoking decline then a policy that does not shift the trend line is a failure. If the trend changes then the policy either makes things worse or is succeeding.

  110. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1356672, posted on June 23, 2014 at 12:31 pm
    [...]
    Like it or not, democracy is the next best (but not great) thing to private property in accomodating people’s preferences.

    We get to it now. Government is about ‘accommodating preferences’, not about setting general rules of conduct and allowing maximal individual liberty and human flourishing; it is about foisting your preferences onto others using the force of the State.

  111. Grandma

    1. Who is Jon Bryan and why would anyone give a rat’s arse what he thinks? About anything?
    2. Even a grandma knows that marijuana smokers commonly use tobacco for spin. And cigarette papers. Some sizing of the weed-led market could be based on Tally Ho sales – I don’t know anyone who smokes tobacco rollies any more.

  112. Joe Goodacre

    goatjam,


    Wrong, it is precisely because I am a non-smoker yet I still abhor the treatment smokers receive from nanny state fascists such as yourself that proves I believe in freedom.

    It doesn’t prove that at all.

    In a society with only private property and no welfare I would be fine with no laws restricting smoking.

    Because non-smokers are not able to exercise their preferences in public spaces I’m fine with laws that represent my preferences in those public areas, and to the extent that those preferences are shared by the majority for those preferences to dictate the use of that public space.

    Because non-smokers access subsidised health care, I’m fine with high taxes on the product. Would I vote to ban smoking. Probably not because practically they would result in a bit of tit for tat, but I’d be happy if no one smoked whilever non-smokers are on the hook for it.

  113. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1356683, posted on June 23, 2014 at 12:37 pm
    [...]
    One is talking about clearances measuring the volume of tobacco in Australia (the claim clearances track volume).

    The clearances are not a volume measure you stupid prick.

  114. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1356693, posted on June 23, 2014 at 12:42 pm
    [...]
    I’d be happy if no one smoked whilever non-smokers are on the hook for it.

    Except that smokers massively subsidise you health care. Don’t let the facts get in the way of your fascism.

  115. Aristogeiton

    s/subsidise you/subsidise your/

  116. Joe Goodacre

    Some_History,

    What do you think of indecent exposure laws – laws requiring people to cover their genitals?

    An inappropriate intrusion of the state into your liberty?

    Or laws based upon the same logic that I used to justify banning smoking in public places?

  117. Joe Goodacre

    Any stats on that?

    That would be an interesting claim from an aggregate persepctive, let alone from an individual perspective of someone with private health insurance.

  118. .

    Indecent exposure is the same as smoking?

    Fuck off you clown.

  119. entropy

    I am comfortable with laws restricting where you can and cannot smoke. I work on the basic rule that you can do what you please a long as it doesn’t have an impact on the well being of others. Being stuck on a flight with a bunch of grey gaspers would impact on the well being of many people, even if it was only making them hate the smell of their clothes. So such regulations make sense,to me.

    But plain packaging is a different thing entirely. I don’t believe it delivers the outcomes intended by the policy, and could even make things worse by increasing the uptake of cheaper, low quality fags and unfiltered rollies. So I do not support it. It’s bad policy, pure and simple.

  120. feelthebern

    Are tobacco products ever cleared in transit through Australia? Since we don’t produce any, they are not cleared on export.

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/authorities-seize-15-million-of-illegal-tobacco-in-victorian-property-raid-20140504-zr4cg.html

    Yeah, we produce ‘em here now.

    Chop chop baby, chop chop.

  121. Joe Goodacre

    So you’re a fan of restricting what clothes or lack there of, but not their speech. Visual pollution is different to you than noise pollution.

  122. Some_History

    “I think the arguments for and against such bans are marginal, but that does not make the ban wrong or oppressive.”

    What sort of Noddy Land are you living in?

    It’s not just about indoor smoking bans. It’s not just about outdoor smoking bans. It’s not just about the ever-increasing extortionate taxes. It’s not just about “plain packaging”. It’s about the greater assault on those who smoke of which the aforementioned are just parts. Despicable is how it’s been inflicted on the public. The moralizing zealots, whether now or last century, are about turning smoking into an immoral act (on a par with sexual acts) not fit for public view. It’s a social engineering crusade like pretty well every previous crusade. Thirty years ago this sort of social engineering was viewed as repugnant in relatively free societies. The zealots recognized this and concluded that the only way for their nearly-stalled crusade to proceed was to conjure secondary smoke into a health issue for nonsmokers. And one salami-slice at a time the zealots have managed to manipulate legislators/media/academia and sections of the public into a social engineering crusade that was viewed as unacceptable just a few decades ago. It’s a loss of insight on a mass scale.

    Just remember that what we see now in terms of widespread smoking bans began with the demand for smoking bans on short-haul flights in the USA. The zealots at the time screeched “What’s so unreasonable about that?”

  123. Some_History

    Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.

    The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
    Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

    While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.

    On top of all of this, there are now instances where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate taxes.

    At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing “social engineering” (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies peddling their useless “nicotine replacement” products. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American “model”) and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).

  124. Aristogeiton

    feelthebern
    #1356724, posted on June 23, 2014 at 12:58 pm
    [...]
    Chop chop baby, chop chop.

    Lol.

  125. .

    Some_History

    Any data or empirical results on the safe level of smoking?

  126. brc

    One of my kids now works for Big Oil and was asked to speak to some disadvantaged students re careers etc, was pretty stunned when she realised the Big Oil thing was an issue

    I was talking to a young relative currently studying engineering. I asked if he was going to go an work for a mining company after graduation. He seemed to think that would be a good idea.

    Hopefully some anti-mining idiocy will take plenty of others out of the running and he will get a higher starting salary.

    As for the smoking bans… keep up the good fight people. We need the smokers around to keep the nanny state occupied lest they turn their attention onto some other mild pleasure many of us enjoy.

  127. Some sizing of the weed-led market could be based on Tally Ho sales – I don’t know anyone who smokes tobacco rollies any more.

    I know quite a few people who prefer rollies, especially in these cash-strapped days. Mind you, they may also be smoking other things in their spare time.

    I worked for a while in a homeless drop-in centre in England in 2001, and an old derro with the shakes called Norman once blessed me with a huge act of trust, by giving me his precious stash of tobacco and papers, and asking me to roll one for him.

    I did so, with the greatest pleasure.

    We also had heroin addicts, but no one ever asked me to prepare their fix for them, thank goodness, as we had a very strict ‘no booze or illegal drug use on the premises’ rule. I don’t think heroin addicts are conspicuous for trust, come to think of it, but old boozers have their moments.

  128. entropy

    As for the smoking bans… keep up the good fight people. We need the smokers around to keep the nanny state occupied lest they turn their attention onto some other mild pleasure many of us enjoy.

    Very good point.

  129. Some_History

    In terms of statistical risk – and that’s all that can be spoken of – light smokers (up to 15 cigarettes per day) are comparable to nonsmokers. Heavy smokers have a statistical correlation with particular disease, e.g., lung cancer, although there are other risk factors. Concerning earlier-onset heart disease, at last count there were close to 500 risk factors, many of them cross-correlated. To pluck out one risk factor, e.g., smoking, and claim that it specifically and individually “causes” so many instances of heart disease is statistical chicanery.

    Also important is that smokers and nonsmokers have roughly the same incidence (~33%) of fatal cancer. There is more lung cancer mortality amongst heavy smokers which means that there is more fatal cancer amongst nonsmokers originating at sites other than the lung but that will probably spread (metastasize) to other organs including the lung. It suggests that there is a proportion of the population that is prone to cancer. You will never hear this sort of information from Cancer Societies.

    I think there’s a fair bit of detail in the book (free download) at http://www.rampant-antismoking.com

    If you play the statistical game that is at the heart of contemporary Public Health ( I should mention that these population-level statistics were pioneered by eugenicists early last century for population control), you cannot win. As you attempt to reduce your risk of one thing, you are immediately at risk of something else.

    We need to remember that everyone is heading for mortality. The longer you live, particularly into old age, the greater the deterioration unto mortality. Getting very old was not viewed as a wonderful goal. Old age is typically grueling. There was a song with lyrics to the effect “I hope I die before I get old”. So why has longevity become the be-all of living. It’s the eugenicists that were obsessed with longevity. It comes from the physicalist framework. It sees no inherent meaning in life. So the only dimension it has to work with is length of life. In this sense longevity is synonymous with survivalism. It produces the physicalist paradox: One should strive to live their meaningless lives for as long as possible.

    This obsession with longevity for its own sake, leading the statistically-appropriate and medically-examined life, is going to create utter havoc as the baby boomers enter old age. It’s going to require loads of resources in care. Then the neo-eugenicists will have ideas on how to “resolve” this predicament.

  130. .

    Some_History
    #1356790, posted on June 23, 2014 at 1:40 pm
    In terms of statistical risk – and that’s all that can be spoken of – light smokers (up to 15 cigarettes per day) are comparable to nonsmokers.

    Fark. You don’t see that with the usual childish, dishonest propaganda of the anti smoking lobby.

    They’ve infected everything. Fucking zealots.

  131. Tel

    It has come to my attention that you’ve been helping Murdoch media spread lies in regards to plain packaging.

    Seems to have come to his attention via a rather roundabout route, because no part of his letter contains any response to Sinclair’s points. Typical mindless effort. Hope he didn’t cost the ALP too much.

  132. Some_History

    Eugenics didn’t come and end with Nazism. Eugenics was popularized in America. Hitler and the Germans were students of American eugenics. Some insight into the connection between American eugenics – California in particular – and German eugenics.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL

    Eugenics is notorious for its racial/breeding/heredity dimension. But is also has a behavioral dimension – anti-tobacco/alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise. [find a eugenics text at a uni library. It will typically have sections on anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol] Eugenics reduced all to the physical. Health was perversely reduced to a physical, absence-of-disease phenomenon (biological reductionism). Eugenics was embraced/funded by the mega-wealthy and the educated classes. There were few critics of eugenics. The promise was the eradication of poverty, crime, and disease. It did no such thing. It brought out the worst in people – racism, bigotry, cruelty, brutality.

    Post-WWII, the eugenics issue was never resolved in America. The greatest concentration of eugenicists was in America. Eugenicists didn’t just disappear or change their philosophy. They simply stopped using the “E”[ugenics] word. In the 1970s there was another emergence of an obsession-with-physical-health movement. Unfamiliar with eugenics, the movement was referred to as “healthism”. Healthism is actually the hygienism of eugenics . Healthism is an aspect (behavioral) of eugenics by another name.

    The current antismoking onslaught involves the typical eugenics “personnel” – physicians, biologists, pharmacologists, statisticians, and, more recently, behaviorists. It involves the same physicalism/materialism (biological reductionism) that produces a perverse, sterile definition of health stripped of the art, detail, and humanity of living. It involves the same reliance on flimsy statistics. It involves the same primacy of the medical establishment and social-engineering intent where all should be coerced to abide by this superficial, “medicalized” framework, i.e. medical imperialism. It involves the same denormalization and mass propaganda techniques, a constant playing on the primal fear of disease and death, to achieve social-engineering goals.

    We can also see that the social engineering is extending beyond tobacco to alcohol, diet, and physical exercise – that’s the behavioral dimension of eugenics.

    BTW Even with the eugenics disaster in Germany, the first directorship of the newly-created (late-1940s) World Health Organization was given to the eugenicist, Brock Chisholm. The first directorship of UNESCO was given to the high-profile eugenicist, Julian Huxley.

  133. johanna

    Some_History, thanks for your posts. People tend to forget the inexorable creep of the health fascists once they get their teeth into something – they are already targeting alcohol and sugar along similar lines.

    You mentioned this, but I just want to expand on one of the most egregious acts of cruelty “for their own good” that the anti-smoking brigade have succeeded in imposing. This is the outright banning of smoking anywhere, anytime for people confined in psychiatric institutions, whether they are there for short-term crisis treatment, or long term. These people, who have much higher smoking rates than the broader community, are deprived of what is often a rare source of comfort in a bleak situation.

    It was particularly hard on older long term patients, for whom rolling a fag and smoking it had been a comfort ritual for decades. They were just told – bad luck – no smoking as of today. “For their own good.” For short-term patients in crisis, yeah, brilliant – when you’re having a breakdown is just the time to load up the stress levels by being forced to give up smoking, apparently.

    These zealots are a bunch of sadistic perverts.

  134. Rabz

    These zealots are a bunch of sadistic perverts.

    Now, now, Johanna – next you’ll be claiming they don’t know what best for us.

  135. Rabz

    what is best for us …

  136. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    Rabz;

    These zealots are a bunch of sadistic perverts.

    hey!

    I know some sadistic perverts.

    They’d never associate with barking mad moonbats like these.

  137. Some_History

    1.
    Apartment smoking bans are gaining momentum, particularly in the USA. It’s a recent phenomenon. They’re even banning smoking in apartments in such places where it gets lethally cold during winter (e.g., Alaska). Smokers are advised that they must go outside in the freezing cold if they want a cigarette.

    The elderly/disabled are harangued and harassed. A summary of the ones that I’m aware of, and these are just some of the ones that make it into the news.

    The story of 97-year-old, Jane O’Grady:
    http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_indian_river_county/vero_beach/jane-ogrady-97-in-jeopardy-of-eviction-from-lakes-at-pointe-west-home-because-of-smoking-habit
    http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2012/feb/15/russ-lemmon-sad-turn-in-story-of-97-year-old-who/
    http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2012/feb/28/letter-the-lakes-at-pointe-west-deserves-for-of/

    Smoking ban for three 90-year-old nursing home residents
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/elections/smoking-ban-for-three-90yearold-nusing-home-residents-30052206.html

    90-year-old World War II vet and his wife being evicted from their home
    because he smokes in building breezeway rather than out on the street

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401317/90-year-old-World-War-II-vet-wife-evicted-home-smoking.html

    (cont’d)

  138. Some_History

    2.
    Senior smokers told to quit or move out of Santa Cruz complex
    http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_11704822

    In Alaska
    http://www.newsminer.com/opinion/community_perspectives/smoked-out-new-smoking-rules-for-public-housing-are-a/article_f0d98378-d593-11e2-aed7-001a4bcf6878.html

    Pensioners forced into freezing shelter for smoke
    http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2012/02/09/pensioners-forced-into-freezing-shelter-for-smoke/

    From the freezing Yukon
    http://www.whitehorsestar.com/archive/story/smoking-ban-leaves-some-residents-fuming/

    88-year-old woman told to butt out – or be evicted (Calgary)
    http://www.vancouversun.com/health/year+woman+told+butt+evicted/3696774/story.html

    Smoking grandma would rather move than quit
    http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2014/04/20/smoking-grandma-rather-move-quit/7951293/

    There is no scientific basis to such bans. They are spiteful bans. They are cruel bans. They are the latest phase in the antismoking bigotry bandwagon. And terrorizing the elderly/disabled is well within the scope of the antismoking miscreants in chasing their deranged smokefree “utopia”.

    In some cases the ban is not only for apartments but for the entire premises. The elderly have to walk through large outdoor areas and onto a surrounding street to have a cigarette. This information should be spread far and wide as to what antismokers and their useful idiots are doing in the name of nonsmokers.

  139. The Hunted Mind

    Right now we have a PM who isn’t fit to run a milkbar, let alone this country. If media reporting had been more balanced …

    Ok, Jon’s not writing for the media but can he not see any irony in putting those two sentences together.

  140. Some_History

    And then we have bloodthirsty murderers that are also rabid antismoking activists, instituting measures with brutal fervor:
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/13/jihadi-militants-ban-smoking-and-guns-in-conquered-territories/#ixzz34cdxaMGD

  141. brc

    As for the smoking bans… keep up the good fight people. We need the smokers around to keep the nanny state occupied lest they turn their attention onto some other mild pleasure many of us enjoy.

    Very good point.

    I’ve been known to occasionally spend time on a sunny beach (with hat and shirt, natch). This activity gives certain doctors the vapours. I appreciate the thin smoking line of tobacco partakers separating the zealots from my ability to enjoy a sunny day. Or a cold beer and a salty snack. Or a vehicle with excess engine power and cornering capability. I’ve been known to burn timber in an open fire and consume animal products without a thought as to how the beast met their end. Sometimes I even remove fish from their native habitat by deception and subsequent beheading. I even drank a can of coke a couple of weeks ago.

    Without smokers to keep them busy I fear all these activities would be under worse siege than they currently are.

  142. johanna

    brc et al, don’t get too complacent. From tonight’s SBS TV guide:

    Fat Vs. Sugar

    8.30pm – 9.30pm
    SBS HD
    Tonight

    What’s worst for you, fat or sugar? It’s a question that’s been generating huge amounts of heat in the world’s media, from the outer reaches of the Internet to the front pages of the New York Times. So what’s the scientific truth? This documentary delves into this debate to get to the bottom of it with the help twin doctors Chris and Xand Van Tullekan. In the greatest traditions of investigative science they’re experimenting on their own bodies, with one on a low fat diet and one on a low sugar diet. This documentary looks at what do sugar and fat do to the human body and which of these twin evils is worse.

    They’re coming for you.

    They fail to mention that a diet free of fat and sugar would be very bad for your health. Besides, what do they think that carbs are converted into?

  143. Infidel Tiger

    As for the smoking bans… keep up the good fight people. We need the smokers around to keep the nanny state occupied lest they turn their attention onto some other mild pleasure many of us enjoy.

    Roxon and Plibersek would issue teenage boys olive green gloves given half a chance.

  144. brc

    I know the anti-fat and anti-sugar zealots are just making documentaries that everyone ignores at the moment. Don’t forget that’s where all these things start. I expect in 20 years the only place to get a good, tax free hamburger will be at speakeasy grills where you have to use a secret password.

  145. johanna

    Mayor Bloomberg tried to introduce taxes and restrictions on soft drinks in New York. There have been calls for similar taxes here, plus minimum alcohol prices.

    They are well past making documentaries that everyone ignores. They are coming for you!

  146. George Brandis thanks for NOTHING

    Some_history – many thanks.

    Once they’ve succeeded with tobacco, they’ll be coming after alcohol. I’ve already noticed some articles mentioning the need to eradicate it. Man the barricades, team, no quarter allowed.

  147. Menai Pete

    As an almost reformed smoker I still bristle at the state sanctioned bigotry directed at smokers and the suppliers of this legal substance

  148. johanna

    I know some sadistic perverts.

    They’d never associate with barking mad moonbats like these.

    Your “sadistic perverts” are voluntary. These sadistic perverts – in the true meaning of the term – are doing it to unwilling victims because it gives them pleasure. They are advancing the Greater Good.

  149. TheSenator

    How are you meant to have a conversation with ideological retards like that?

    It’s just not possible.

  150. Gab

    They don’t want a logical argument. They just want to emote.

  151. johanna

    But they only want to emote selectively, Gab. They don’t emote at all on behalf of (genuine) psychiatric patients, who are among the most unhappy people in Western society. They reckon that giving up smoking and changing to a diet of tofu and mung beans – when they are used to chops and veg – will transform them. And even if it doesn’t, it is for their own good.

    I used to do a bit of voluntary work with psychiatric patients, and this lot are just cruel, sadistic and should not even be allowed to train a dog.

  152. Amused

    I’m also pretty pissed about Murdoch’s influence. This is the prick that gave us Whitlam AND Rudd!

  153. johanna

    He “gave us” Whitlam and Rudd? How? On a silver platter, with sugar on top? And “we” (whoever that is) were forced to eat it?

    Rubbish.

Comments are closed.