How is that slippery slope going?

Here is Vera da Costa e Silva speaking at the recent New Dehli COP7 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control conference.

We are also watched by sugar and alcohol products manufacturers, who see the tobacco control movement as a precursor to threats they now face from public health campaigns. These industries fear a united international community acting on behalf of consumers. In the coming days, I hope their fears will be fully justified as we take further steps to end the tobacco epidemic.

Well today The Conversation has a how-to guide by Simon Chapman.

1. Re-orienting public health agencies to give high priority to advocacy.
2. Bring the background into the foreground.
3. Collect and continually update killer facts.
4. Values, values, values.
5. The “half pregnant” principle.
6. Cultivate future political champions.
7. Build communication networks.

He, of course, leaves out that the taxpayer picks up the tab for all of this.

This entry was posted in Hypocrisy of progressives, Oppressive government, Plain Packaging, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to How is that slippery slope going?

  1. Acting on behalf of consumers?

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! If consumers didn’t want it, there’d be no market. Simples!

  2. Tel

    I posted this in the main chatterbox but I’ll put it here as well because it’s kind of relevant. All about how to decide the harmful dose of various things (e.g. why a whiff of smoke from a passing cigar is not going to give you cancer).

    http://powerhour.alexepstein.com/2016/11/22/power-hour-dr-edward-calabrese-on-the-science-of-environmental-danger/

  3. Some History

    It’s always good to hear from his propaganda eminence, Sir Simon Crapman A[rse] O[le], particularly in retirement.

    How is that slippery slope going?

    As the “Public Health” unintelligentsia proposed all sorts of nasty measures against smoking/smokers decades ago, the question was asked. This sounds as though it could “slide” to other products. Where does it end? The standard Tobacco Control (prohibitionist) response was – Don’t be ridiculous. Tobacco is a unique product. Claiming that there is a “slippery slope” to other products is just fear-mongering by the [evil] tobacco industry (and those silly enough to believe the fear-mongering). TC has been bleating this crap ever since. Crapman was one of the primary bleaters of the crap in Australia. And, yet, here’s Crapman pontificating on the slide of Tobacco Control “methodology” beyond tobacco. He’s a sanctimonious, pathological liar and should be called out on it. Although there are those in Public Health that for years have been attempting to apply TC methodology to other targets (e.g., alcohol, sugar, salt), others in Public Health will still claim – now – that there is no “slippery slope” from Tobacco Control. It’s a mind-numbing mess.

    The same lying could be seen with the introduction of indoor smoking bans. The question was asked whether such bans would “slide” to the outdoors? Guess what? It was met with the standard TC response – Don’t be ridiculous. Claiming that there is a “slippery slope” to the outdoors is just fear-mongering by the [evil] tobacco industry (and those silly enough to believe the fear-mongering). Yet, look at where we are now. Smoking bans in outdoor dining areas, in parks, on beaches, on entire university campuses, etc, etc. And it didn’t [d]evolve to this. This was the intention from the outset. The current antismoking crusade began in the 1970s. It was commenced by leftists (social-engineering prohibitionists) with the intent, through a series of “salami slice” steps, on getting smoking banned everywhere – indoors and out (see “Godber Blueprint” – the World Health Organization master plan).

    Crapman notes “The comprehensive roadmap for tobacco policy reform and increasing public awareness was first set down in 1976 by the International Union Against Cancer in Guidelines for Smoking Control “. The WHO Godber Blueprint was set in 1975. The prohibitionist goal was to eradicate (through baseless bans) smoking from pretty well all the places that people typically smoke – indoors and out. The dates are important. In the mid-1970s, smoking was not considered – and for good reason – an addiction. There were no studies at all on secondhand smoke, and there were no studies on the “cost burden” of smokers to society. All of these came to the foreground since the 1970s through concocted “science” to shove the deranged prohibitionist agenda on everyone.

    If it’s not clear from Crapman’s article, Public Health has long been hijacked by social-engineering activists. They are obsessed with cultivating the media, maintaining a high media profile, attracting funding. They are not concerned with facts. They are concerned with whatever will get their contorted view inflicted on everyone, i.e., propaganda.

  4. Senile Old Guy

    We are also watched by sugar and alcohol products manufacturers, who see the tobacco control movement as a precursor to threats they now face from public health campaigns. These industries fear a united international community acting on behalf of consumers.

    The fundamental problem is that the are not ‘acting on behalf of consumers’. They are acting on behalf of special interest groups against the interests of consumers. If asked, consumers would tell these people to f*ck off. I certainly would.

  5. Matt

    I guess we can be rest assured that the food and beverage industry are ‘acting on behalf of consumers’.

  6. Wozzup

    Surely what is needed is not a “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control conference” but rather a “Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Conferences conference”. That is, a conference on how to prohibit highly paid pearl-clutchers and politically correct worry-worts from jetting off to exotic locations to come up with yet more ways to annoy and regulate people. I have no real problem with banning tobacco but I just happen to think that concerned and annoying lefties who perpetually have a wrinkled brow and a look of compassion on their puss, are even more egregious than the smoking habit. I am of the school that believes that just like the Puritans, who were said to be against sex because it could lead to dancing, that mob are opposed to smoking because it might give pleasure to poor people.

  7. thefrolickingmole

    Cultivate future political champions.

    Oh good, just what Parliament needs more Mrs Grundies and swivel eyed loons whining about nuclear milk and “daddy touched me so all men must pay” types.

    So many of these people are seriously mentally ill and staving off their own inner demons by being martyrs to a cause.

Comments are closed.