Throughout history, we have found it is not uncommon to convict the innocent. How many convicted people are released each year from prisons as the result of DNA evidence? This fact shows the same thing can occur in society with smokers. There is absolutely no reason why a smoker shouild be taxed more than a non-smoker.
Convicting the Innocent
Writing in 1998, Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, concluded that the real cause of lung cancer is diesel fumes. She claimed that the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:
· tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
· that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
· that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
· that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
· and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.
Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little said:
"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".
It appears that Dr. Little's own study was confirmed in Abbey D, et al. New evidence links air pollution with lung cancer . Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999; 159: 373-82.
Diesel smoke and lung cancer, by Dr Kitty Little , January 1998
The public were told that the sole purpose of the ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces was to protect the health of non-smokers from the harmful effects of passive smoke. Dr. Littles research turns that argument completely on its head.
I have alreaded pointed out that the European Environment Agency are concerned that Air quality limit values, which are aimed at protecting public health, are frequently exceeded especially in streets and other urban hotspots Source.
I have also identified that, as recently as 2004, in a work part supported by the ExternE project series of the European Commission DG Research, that we find research authors stating that they find several reasons why the number of deaths is not meaningful for the total mortality impact of air pollution, which includes the fact that
it makes no sense to add the number of deaths due to different contributing causes (such as air pollution, smoking or lack of exercise) because one would end up with numbers far in excess of total mortality. Valuation of Air Pollution Mortality: How to achieve consistency between the epidemiological studies and the monetary valuation
I'm afraid such strange logic evades me. Perhaps I'm missing something here. However, detailed examination of the 2005 paper Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis by Konrad Jamorik reveales that
Deborah Arnott of ASH (UK) provided some important references and ……the calculations presented in the paper were commissioned by SmokeFree London, a collaboration of all 33 local borough councils in London concerned with extension of smoke-free policies in that city.
I would excuse anyone for thinking that at this point that things just couldn't get any worse for the tobacco control lobby and our politicians in Westminster but unfortunately the picture becomes even more damning.
In an article published in today's Publican Pete Robinson writes
Although ASH purports to be a 'charity' it's principle source of funding comes from the Tobacco Advisory Group (TAG) - a tiny, somewhat obscure organisation who's principal role is to dole out cash to proactive anti-smoking parties. But who funds TAG? You may (or perhaps not) be surprised to learn that TAG is a subsidiary of Cancer Research UK.
and that
Around the time New Labour came to power CRUK started to be regularly injected with State cash in return for favours rendered. For example, in 2003 the Dept of Health handed CRUK £2.5 million to 'develop' their anti-smoking campaigns. In August 2005 they published a consultation document entitled: "Going Smokefree: The Case for ALL pubs and clubs", that led directly to the blanket smoking ban.
He boldly continues
So we have a major charity getting taxpayer's funds, which sets up a go-between institution to bankroll a lobbying pressure group. (ASH) which in turn supplies dubious statistics and dodgy surveys directly to the Dept of Health. I'm sure there must be laws that would criminalise such practices in The City.
As recently as March this year I stated that when one looks at the grants received by ASH from the Department of Health and other Health Charities it becomes obvious that it became imperative by 2005 to generate some groundbreaking new evidence in order to maintain funding levels. Listen Up ASH! We Have Questions
As if by magic they conjured up the Konrad Jamrozik study.
When the final historical chapter is written concerning today's confrontation between the prohibitionists and libertarians it will make reference to heroes and villains. One such hero might be Politician Lord Skidelsky who remarked
Everything hinges on the harm that smoking does to non-smokers… You do not have any right to object and stop me doing something unless I am doing you harm. The fact that what I do may cause you irritation or disquiet or even some distress does not give you the right to stop me doing it unless I am doing you harm. Whether I am doing you harm or not is a scientific issue; it depends partly on the medical evidence in this case, and partly on statistical evidence.
I am not an epidemiologist but I know a little about statistics. I assert that the harm wrought by passive smoking to the lungs, the heart and other vital organs is statistically negligible. It is not something that would have any statistical significance outside the context of this particularly heated debate. Therefore, I believe that Dr K Denson of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemotosis Research Foundation states the true position:
"The hard evidence for any deleterious effect of second-hand smoke is so tenuous and equivocal, that similar evidence would not be seriously considered, let alone published, in any other field of medicine".
He continued
The House of Commons Select Committee on Health refers to 12,000 extra deaths. Yet the eminent epidemiologist, Sir Richard Peto, said that it was impossible to quantify the figures. I was there—he was giving that evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. I pressed him repeatedly to name a figure, and he said, "I can't do it". He said, "I feel there must be some effect, but I cannot quantify that effect".
Lord Skidesy was even more direct when stating
I do not believe that the harm that passive smoking might cause can in any way justify this measure—that is, criminalising all smoking in any public space…..I accuse the Government of not showing a due concern for personal liberty……. My position in this debate is a concern for personal liberty.
Conclusion
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the present Government is determined to trample all over the liberties and freedoms of the British People. It is doing so repeatedly. The smoking ban, 42 days detention without trial, ID cards, speed and surveillance cameras, pay as you throw bin taxes, an ever increasing burden of other petty rules and regulations enforced by public sector jobsworths and the illegal surrender of lawmaking powers to the European Union provide the clear evidence of this. Isn't all this being pursued in the absence of public consent?
The choice confronting each and every one of us is stark. We can merely act as passive spectators and watch as the fabric of our democratic institutions and cultural identity are destroyed or we can say "Enough is enough" and take reasonable steps to defend ourselves against the largely unpublicised Change agenda.
We believe that choice is yours. I pray that you exercise your judgement wisely.
Martin Hensman M.Inst.L.Exc, LLB (Hons)
http://www.freedom2choose.info/news1.php?id=783
