The Tobacco Debate-Main Course

Do tuck in.

First, can we get that old "I have a right to fresh air" myth out of the way? No such right exists, and even if it did, it is unenforceable. Shortly after we fell out of the trees, started to walk upright, discovered fire, then discovered how to start a fire and control it, fresh air went out of the window cave. Since those days we have been breathing in whacking great lung-fulls of smoke and we haven't stopped. Not ever. The make up of the smoke may have changed, but we have continued to ingest it, (or far worse, since the Industrial Revolution), and despite the fact that wood, coal or charcoal emits 10,000 times more carcinogens, cancer was a rare beast. Before 1900 or so, cancerous tumours were almost unheard of. Strangely, when the motor car began to be mass produced, cancer cases rose exponentially. I know, like you do, that correlation does not prove causation, but it is a mighty strange coincidence, is it not?

Luckily, for the governments of the day, there was a scapegoat waiting in the wings.

This wee beastie:

Nicotiana













Nicotine protects against a nasty condition called Pellagra. All smokers are naturally protected but governments knew that they had to protect all the non-smokers too. They launched Nicotinic Acid as a supplement to our daily diet. The anti-smokers were horrified. They campaigned and had the name changed to Niacin (a contraction of nicotinic acid) but still, the more idiotic amongst them continued to howl. Eventually the name was changed to vitamin B3. Someone should have told Kellogg. Check the ingredients in that bowl of cereal. Someone should have told Warburton. Check the ingredients in your daily bread. In fact, Niacin is part of your daily diet whether you want it or not. It is in dozens and dozens of products.

Nicotine protects against Alzheimer's Disease (AD). If you prefer your news from an anti-smoking source, you can start with the BBC. If you want to dip into one of my favourite sources of information, pop along here and read away. Non-smokers, you will discover, have higher incidences of AD, Parkinson's, Colorectal cancers, ulcerative colitis and even Tourettes Syndrome, for fucks sake.

From the same piece you will notice that smokers have better cognitive abilities too!

Quitting smoking kills you stone dead. People are often amazed when I quote the figures from this study-unique in the field of science, most anti-smoking groups (who fund these studies) stay the hell away from facts like these. (Note the usual caveat "Smoking is very bad for you and you must quit").

Pub closures cost the Treasury big time.

Pub closures since the bans were enacted here and here.

From my own recollection, the number of closures in England in 2005 were 102, in 2006 it was 204, and in the last six months of 2007 (the ban took effect in July) the number of closures was over four thousand. Please note that this was 7 months before the recession/downturn kicked in. The anti-smokers always blame the economic downturn and they are always wrong about it.

How smoking protects against lung cancer. One of my all time favourites. The logic, and the evidence, is stunning.

Of course, every anti-smoker you come across will say "Second hand smoke has killed hundreds of thousands of people this year alone!"  My standard reply to them? Name three.

Anti-smokers misquote or downright lie about the available studies on second hand smoke all the time. If you want a close look yourself, you need to understand the difference between relative and real risk. They are a world apart. Scoot back over to Dave's place and bone up statistical risk. I guarantee that the very next story you see in the Daily Mail wailing that the sky is falling, you will understand why it isn't falling at all.

Once you graduate from Statistics 101 you are ready to go visit Forces International to see all studies between 1981 and 2006, and you can see at a glance which studies were statistically significant and which ones weren't. I won't spoil the surprise for you.

I'll stop there. You have a fair bit of reading to do to understand why second hand smoke is about as harmful as a pixies fart.

But let's end with good news: Tobacco will be used in the fight against cancer.

If I have missed anything you care deeply about, or feel that I have not proven my case, do let me know and I will provide more links than a sausage factory.


CR.

The Tobacco Debate-An Aperitif

The main course will be sumptuous, I guarantee you that.

I'd like you to go and have a read at Dave Hitt's place.

I'll serve up the rest as the day progress, but just to whet your appetite:

"If SHS really is as dangerous as the government, political organizations and charities claim, efforts to prevent it and contain it might be justified. But is it dangerous? We're bombarded by endless proclamations of its horrors, claims that get more fantastic with each passing year. These claims are usually accompanied by impressive sounding numbers. Are smokers really hurting every stranger in the vicinity? The answer to that question is obvious once you know the facts. 

We're not going to rely on hype or hysteria. We won't tell you we have The Truth. We'll just present the hard cold facts and let you figure out The Truth for yourself. Every effort has been made to verify everything on this site, to make sure it as accurate and factual as possible. 

This site will not only make you an expert on the subject of SHS, but also leave you well equipped to deal with anyone using numbers to support health claims."

Back with much more later.

CR.

A Cause We Must All Support

Smoking in pubs.

I know what you are thinking: "I'm a non-smoker, this has nothing to do with me. In fact, I prefer it now that pubs don't smell".

A reasonable statement, I have heard it a thousand times. Very reasonable. Until, that is, you begin to dig deeper and think harder.

When they banned smoking in pubs & clubs in March 2006 (in Scotland) and July 2007 (In England, Wales & NornIron) something incredible happened; they divided us absolutely. Prior to these dates, friends were simply that, friends. Very shortly after the bans were enacted, we drifted apart. People we had happily co-existed with in the same shared space were badly, terribly affected by the ban. Both smokers and non-smokers.

I spent those years (2006-2010) learning everything I could about tobacco. And I do mean everything. I studied it from seed to smoke. I know what's in it tobacco, I know what "harm" it does, I know which diseases it offers protection from, I know the benefits and the disadvantages of smoking tobacco. I know it's history, who used it and when. (The answer to that one surprises most: shreds of tobacco were found in pyramids dating back more than 8,000 years). I have read 78 of the original studies on proclaimed harm from second hand smoke. I have read a hundred other meta-studies that those originals spawned. I have studied the financial aspects and who earns more from tobacco/nicotine (it's touch and go whether it is the pharmaceutical or the tobacco companies, if you must know), such a great business either smoking or stopping smoking is. The industry employs 105 million people around the world. Tobacco taxes generate trillions for greedy governments the world over. They are, honestly speaking, completely and utterly addicted to tobacco money. Caring for people who contract "smoking related diseases" (this is mostly mythical; I can pretty much prove that whatever malady was contracted can easily be contracted from a dozen different things) costs them but a fraction of what we pump into the coffers.

If anyone ever says to you "Smokers are a drain on the NHS", tell them to piss off. Smokers in the UK alone generate enough money to design, build, equip, staff and maintain EIGHT new hospitals a year. The tobacco take is £12 billion a year and (although this is a big, fat lie), smoking related illness supposedly costs £2.5 billion. As the (turncoat) MP Stephen Pound said during the (very brief) debate on smoking bans "That's not a bad deal for the country". Not a single MP denied it.  Check Hansard. It's in there.

Incidentally, did you know that we debated the Iraq war for 40 hours, the smoking ban for a measly 4 hours, and the fox hunting ban? Over 400 hours of parliamentary time. The war affected the entire nation, the smoker ban affected 15 million people and their friends, and the hunting ban? Around 100,000 people.

None of this is the point of this piece.

This, however, is:

Almost all of you come here to learn about freedom. Whether it is my personal journey you are following, or just to read up on ways you can be awkward, the basic premise is freedom; the getting and keeping of it, or to share your disgust when you learn that freedoms are being curtailed. It is for those reasons that I thought you would all, by the time you have finished reading this, rush off immediately to sign this petition.

"Why should I?", I imagine would be your first reaction.

About that I will say this:

• When the bans came in they said it would be good for pubs. So far, we have lost 8,468 pubs.
• They said it would be good for clubs, restaurants and bingo halls. So far we have lost over 2,000 of them
• They said non-smokers would flock to the new, clean, fresh-smelling pubs. They did not. Hence the wholesale slaughter of some fantastic venues.
• This one childish Act has put more than 200,000 people out of work.
• They didn't just ban smokers. They effectively banned tolerant non-smokers as well.
• They took away your right, Mr & Mrs Non Smoker, to decide for yourselves.
• They ruined your friendships, interrrupted some brilliant conversations.
• They sent YOUR older relatives outside to smoke in atrocious weather conditions.
• Not one single life has been "saved" by this smoking ban. Not one.
• Yet several people have died as a direct result of it. The first death was a 74 year old man in Scotland.
• This legislation is nasty. It cost billions to implement and hurts us all.
• Reinstating the owners right to decide will revitalise the pub industry.
• It will allow us all to meet again in safety, warmth and comfort.
• It will allow us all to talk, uninterrupted, once more.

I really could go on. The odours! We will be rid of them (piss, vomit, BO) once more as landlords and landladies can afford once again to switch on their air management systems. Of course, that was always the easier answer, better air management. I have seen systems that allow me to smoke in a bar separated from the barkeep and my non-smoking friends by an air curtain. The only way they know I am smoking is because they can see me.

Several suggestions are put forth by campaigners, such as:

1. Separation-No. That is a Frankfurt Technique and I will not endure apartheid here.
2. Segregation-No. That is even worse.
3. Licenses for pubs that allow smoking inside.-Absolutely not. Too much regulation as it is.
4. Allow only a set number of pubs to allow smoking. 20% is a popular number. -Nope. All landlords get to choose. 

One thing I think we can all agree on: there is scope for improvement. A great deal of scope.  In order to get those inepts talking about it again-with a fresh and honest look at the legislation-we need to nudge them. We can do that by signing the petition I am going to link to.

Points to note:

Do NOT sign the petition if you are content to be told what to do by nanny.

Do NOT sign the petition if you believe the legislation is working just fine thank you very much.

Do NOT sign the petition if your biggest gripe is having to wash your clothes after a night out.

Do NOT sign the petition if you firmly believe that you have a right to "clean" air. You don't.

Do NOT sign the petition if seeing smokers huddled outside in wind, rain and snow gives you a little buzz.

Do NOT sign the petition if you cannot decide for yourself what is safe and what isn't.

Beyond that little list, you have no reason NOT to sign the petition.

If you have a strong desire to get your MPs/MSPs/Assembly Members doing something worthwhile, creating wealth, jobs, and a safe venue for you and I to meet up and talk, then please go here and add your support for this debate.

If you want to debate the science, bring it on. I have two million facts to share with you.

If you want to debate the finances, I have 12 billion facts to share with you.

If you want to debate the freedom to choose, I have only one fact: every time they "create" a freedom for one, they take it away from another.

Always remember: one right removed diminishes us all. If we never stand together on anything, they will divide us, and divide us, and divide us. We are easier to control in small groups. I will not be controlled by these imbeciles any more. Will you?

When they "created" this freedom for you to breathe clean air (no such thing, do ask me why) they killed many people both directly and indirectly. I have examples of this. When they told smokers to get outside they opened the door for rapists to strike vulnerable women. Many have been raped as a direct result of this ban. I have examples. When they sent us outside to smoke in Scotland, the use of Rohypnol rose by a massive 140%. I have the evidence.

Was even one life (one that was never in danger; I have those facts too) saved by this nonsensical ban? No. Not a single one. Was the health of bar workers improved? Several studies in Scotland show that no, they were not.

Are you aware that 58% of quitters die of lung cancer/lung disease within 30-50 months of quitting? I have that study.

Are you aware that smoking provides protection against Alzheimers Disease? I have that study.

Are you aware that smoking prevents several cancers? I have those studies too.

Smoking is said to kill 100,000 thousand people a year in the UK. It doesn't, but they need you to believe that. The NHS alone kills between 60,000 and 80,000 people a year due directly to negligence and diseases contracted whilst in hospital. How many of those deaths, do you think, are labelled as "smoking related"?

Your government lies to you. It does this day in and day out. Why did you imagine they would tell you the truth about smoking?

I will.

Just ask.

CR.

Norman Scarth On Russia Today-UPDATED

No-one is suggesting that Norman is an angel. Just that he should not be in gaol.

Meanwhile, EUReferendum show us a couple of examples of who should be locked up. It seems we are a nation of kiddie-fiddlers. And that's ok. The paedos walk free. Almost every time. Makes you wonder about these crusty old judges, does it not?

Awkward sods like Norman need to be locked away.

For shame.

UPDATE: Just in case you think I am biased, take a closer look at our judiciary.  Not exactly saints themselves, are they?

CR.

Tip of the beret to blogger TTC and Twitterer ESGI for the heads-up. Thanks guys.

Norman Scarth-Court Report For 25th August.

In the interests of fairness, I thought I should post this court record of Norman's hearing yesterday. We have read (or followed links to) Norman's side of the story.

This is how it all looks to a different judge on a different bench.

Is it fair and balanced? You decide.

Did Judge Williams have the power to release Norman? I would say so.

He chose not to. (He explains why near the bottom).

Here you go:

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2269 (Admin)
		Case No: CO/7741/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		26/08/2011

B e f o r e :MR JUSTICE  WYN WILLIAMS
____________________
Between:

	NORMAN OF THE FAMILY SCARTH  (THE LIVING MAN)	Claimant
	- and -
	(1) GOVERNOR OF HM PRISON ARMLEY (2) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE	First Defendant Second Defendant

____________________
The Claimant appeared in person
Suzanne Lambert (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 25 August 2011
____________________
HTML VERSION OF REASONS FOR DECISION ____________________
Crown Copyright ©

1. On 25 August 2011 I heard an application by the Claimant for a writ of habeas corpus. He also applied for bail pending his appeal to the Court of Appeal. I was also asked to consider (by his McKenzie friend, Mr Jarvis) whether or not it was open to me to hear an application by the Claimant to purge his contempt. At the conclusion of the hearing I announced that the application for habeas corpus was refused; that the application for bail pending appeal was refused and that I declined to consider an application by the Claimant to purge his contempt. I also announced that my reasons for these decisions would be given in writing and handed down at the Royal Courts of Justice on 26 August 2011. I decided to take that course so that there would be a written record, available generally, of my reasons for making the orders which I announced in court.
History of proceedings
2. The application for habeas corpus was made by a claim form issued on 12 August 2011. I was asked to consider the claim and the supporting papers as a matter of some urgency and on 15 August 2011 I made an order specifying that there should be a directions hearing on 18 August 2011. I directed that the Claimant should appear at that hearing by video link since it seemed to me to be the most efficacious way of ensuring that a meaningful hearing took place on 18 August.
3. On 18 August 2011 the directions hearing took place before me. The Claimant appeared by video link. I was addressed by the Claimant at some length and I was also addressed by his McKenzie friend, Mr Jarvis. At the conclusion of the hearing I directed that the application for habeas corpus should be heard on 25 August 2011; that the Claimant should, again, appear by video link and that the proceedings should be served not just upon the Governor of HMP Armley but also that the Secretary of State for Justice should be served.
4. At the hearing on 25 August 2011 I was addressed at length by the Claimant. Mr Jarvis also made representations on his behalf. I was assisted by a written skeleton argument and supporting documentation prepared by Ms Lambert. The Claimant was provided with those documents shortly before the hearing was due to take place and I accept that he had little time in which to respond to them. However, no application for an adjournment of the proceedings was made and in the light of the representations which were made both by the Claimant and Mr Jarvis I am quite satisfied that the Claimant suffered no prejudice by reason of the fact that the skeleton argument on behalf of the Defendants with supporting documents was not provided to him until shortly before the hearing.
5. A key document provided on behalf of the First Defendant was a copy of a court order dated 26 July 2011. This case has proceeded on the basis that on 26 July 2011 before HH Judge Rose, sitting in the Bradford Crown Court, the Claimant was found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to a term of 6 months' imprisonment. A copy of the court order provided to me confirms that to be the case.
The issues
6. Despite the substantial documentation filed in support of the application for the writ of habeas corpus comparatively little detail was provided about what had occurred in the Bradford Crown Court which had caused HH Judge Rose to find the Claimant to be in contempt. However, during the course of his oral submissions the Claimant explained to me what had occurred. He told me that he had been sitting in the public gallery when it had been reported to the judge that he was recording the proceedings. My understanding is that there followed a hearing in which the judge concluded that this constituted a contempt of court and that for the contempt a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment should be imposed. Ms Lambert was unable to provide any further information about what had occurred before the judge. She accepted, however, that the judge had apparently dealt with the alleged contempt summarily.
7. The Claimant was not represented by a lawyer and, according to the Claimant, he was unsure whether or not the recording equipment which he was using was actually working at any material time.
8. Set against this background the Claimant complains that the proceedings before HH Judge Rose were in contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Claimant also alleges that the fact of his imprisonment and/or the conditions in which he is held constitute breaches of Articles 2, 3, 7, and 10 of the Convention. Mr Jarvis made short submissions in support of those contentions. The submissions made by the Claimant were much longer but the thrust of the reasons why he alleged that his imprisonment was unlawful was a complaint was that his human rights had been violated and that HH Judge Rose had been biased.
Article 6
9. Superior courts, such as the Crown Court, have jurisdiction to deal summarily with all types of contempt, including contempt "in the face of the court". Contempt "in the face of the court" has been interpreted broadly and is not restricted to contempts actually seen by the judge. I have no doubt that it was open to the judge to investigate whether a contempt of court had been committed once it had been reported to him that the Claimant was recording proceedings. The recording of proceedings before a court is capable of amounting to contempt if no permission has been obtained for that course. In my judgment it was open to the judge to conclude that contempt had been committed. Certainly, there is nothing in the papers before me to justify a conclusion that the judge acted unlawfully when he concluded that a contempt had been committed.
10. As I have said the Claimant was not represented before HH Judge Rose. There is no evidential basis put before me to suggest that the Claimant sought legal representation. I accept that it would have been desirable had a lawyer been appointed to represent the Claimant in what were summary proceedings for contempt. Nonetheless I am not persuaded that the fact that the Claimant was unrepresented of itself constitutes an infringement of his rights under Article 6. Throughout these proceedings the Claimant has displayed utter contempt for all lawyers and judges. In my judgment it is unreal to suppose that the Claimant truly wished to have a lawyer to represent him before HH Judge Rose.
11. I am also unpersuaded that the fact that the judge invoked the summary procedure infringed the Claimant's rights under Article 6. No authority was drawn to my attention for that proposition and in the absence of clear authority binding on me I am unpersuaded that I should find that the Claimant's rights under Article 6 of the Convention were breached by the procedure which was adopted at the Crown Court.
Articles 2 and 3
12. As I have said the Claimant complains about the conditions of his incarceration; he also complains that the First Defendant has failed to provide him with appropriate medication. It is also submitted that incarceration, of itself, is a breach of Article 3 given the Claimant's age (he is 85) and his state of health.
13. I accept the submissions of Ms Lambert that to the extent that this claim is directed to the conditions of the Claimant's imprisonment habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy. If the Claimant has a genuine complaint about the conditions of his incarceration he should make a formal complaint through the procedure available to him at the prison. If his complaint remains unsatisfied he might consider an application for judicial review. In any event he may consider bringing a private law claim against the First Defendant.
14. I do not accept that the Claimant's rights under Articles 2 and/or 3 are infringed simply by virtue of his imprisonment given the state of his health and his age. As is obvious, it is regrettable that a man of 85 should find himself in the predicament which the Claimant faces. His age, alone, however, cannot be a reason for saying that his incarceration breaches his rights under Articles 2 and 3.
15. The Claimant has asserted to me that his health is poor. However, there is no medical evidence before me and throughout two hearings the Claimant seemed capable of robust argument and steely determination to put over his point. While, of course, that does not demonstrate that he is not suffering from some ill health it is a factor which is properly to be taken into account when seeking to determine whether it is proper to infer that such is the state of the Claimant's health that his imprisonment constitutes breaches of Article 2 or 3. The reality is that there is simply no proper evidence from which it would be permissible to conclude that the Claimant's rights under articles 2 and 3.
Articles 7 and 10
16. The Claimant mentioned Article 7 but nothing he said began to explain how there was a breach.
17. A contempt of court is an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. Unauthorised recording of court proceedings has long been held to be capable of constituting a contempt. The rights conferred by Article 10 are not unrestricted. There is no arguable basis that the Claimant's rights under Article 10 have been infringed.
Bias
18. The Claimant asserted that HH Judge Rose was biased. That was a theme he returned to time and time again in his submissions. There is no evidence to support this allegation. The Claimant seems to have formed the view that the action taken by the judge against him was explicable only by bias because, according to the Claimant, others have been engaged in recording court proceedings in other parts of the country but have not been dealt with in the same way. That is no basis for a conclusion of bias, real or apparent, on the part of the judge. The reality is that the Claimant considers all (or at the very least most) judges who have dealings with him are biased against him.
Conclusion on habeas corpus
19. In the absence of any basis upon which it would be proper to conclude that the Claimant has been imprisoned unlawfully or that his imprisonment has become unlawful I could not grant the writ of habeas corpus. As I sought to point out to the Claimant in the hearing on 15 August 2011 his interests are much better served by an appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. I am satisfied from documentation referred to by the Claimant and sent to me in the post either by the Claimant or persons acting on his behalf that the Claimant has lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal. It is that court, in my judgment, which should adjudicate upon whether or not the finding of contempt of court and/or the sentence imposed for the contempt should remain.
20. I do not pretend that I have dealt with every point which the Claimant made during the course of a speech which lasted about 45 minutes. I have, however, dealt with all of the points made which I considered had any bearing upon whether the Claimant was detained lawfully.
Purging contempt
21. During the course of his oral representations Mr Jarvis raised the possibility of the Claimant applying to me to purge his contempt. In some ways this was a surprising application since in his own representations to me the Claimant demonstrated nothing but contempt for the order made by HH Judge Rose and, indeed for the judge himself. Nonetheless I felt it my duty to consider this possibility. I did so upon the assumption that I had jurisdiction to entertain an application although Ms Lambert was not able to confirm that I enjoyed such jurisdiction. I reached the conclusion that assuming I had jurisdiction to deal with the matter I should decline to do so. It seemed to me that the appropriate forum for any such application would be the judge who had found the contempt proved and who was, far better than me, in a position to judge the seriousness of the contempt and the genuineness of the Claimant's application to purge his contempt. Alternatively, such an application could be made to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. It is a possible outcome of the appeal that the court will uphold the finding of contempt and also determine that a sentence of six months' imprisonment was an appropriate one. Even in those circumstances, however, the court might be prepared to entertain an application to purge the contempt. I raise that possibility for the Claimant to consider. Whether he makes such an application and whether the Court of Appeal entertains it is not for me to determine.
Bail
22. I satisfied myself that the Claimant has instituted an appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. I directed that the hearing of his appeal should take place on the first open date after 2 September 2011. In those circumstances I declined to grant bail. Bail pending an appeal against conviction/sentence is rarely granted especially when there is a real prospect that the appeal will be heard in early course. None of the circumstances surrounding this case persuade me that it was appropriate for me to grant bail. There was little information available to me about the circumstances in which the contempt had been committed and I had no information about the Claimant's antecedent history. I should say for completeness that I assumed I had jurisdiction to grant bail not as the judge who had determined the application for habeas corpus against the Claimant but, rather, as a judge of the High Court who is authorised to sit in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and to whom an application (albeit very informally) had been made for bail pending appeal. 

The next hearing is on September 3rd. Let's see what happens then.

Despite Norman's "obvious contempt" for Judge Rose, I still think that six months is beyond harsh. Whether you are 18 and fit as a flea or 85 and full of piss & vinegar, or somewhere in between, no-one deserves six months for recording a court hearing. Judge Williams may have missed the spite that Judge Rose displayed.

None of us did, Judge Williams.

This was a nasty, spiteful, childish sentence.

Make this undeserved punishment end the next chance you get.

CR.

Oops! Forgot to post the link.