The second article on The Free Society can be found at this link so again, if you do read it here, click the link to give The Free Society some extra traffic.

Recently it emerged that the aging population is now a drain on the economy. Of course, it is easy to understand how the elders of society can cost more than the younger generations, as it is typically in old age that we require increased healthcare and medication. However, it is one thing to say the elderly cost more money than youngsters, but it is quite another to say they are, in and of themselves, a drain on the economy.

It is a baffling proposition: old people are draining the economy that they spent their whole lives paying into. Unless each pensioner is racking up astronomical medical bills, it is most unlikely that they take out more than they have paid in. And if what we pay doesn’t cover our eventual withdrawals, one must wonder what purpose the NHS has these days. We are increasingly told that smokers, drinkers and obese people “drain” its resources, despite the huge amount of money smokers alone pay through cigarette tax, and now the elderly are a target too.

If the NHS is unable to cope with these three causes of illness, does it have any value at all? If, as we are told, we are a drain on the NHS, just what happened to all the money that each working adult pours into it to ensure healthcare when required? We are instructed to stop smoking, cut back on drinking and watch what we eat so we save the NHS money by living longer – but now living longer is akin to siphoning untold sums of money out of the organisation.

What is most troubling about this is the idea that the money apparently isn’t there. After all, it should be there: each working citizen has been paying for it long enough. Just what is the purpose of giving a very generous slice of your pay cheque to National Insurance if you can’t use it for what it’s intended?

Such a circumstance would not be tolerated elsewhere: if you paid private health insurance each month only to be told the money won’t actually be used to treat you, you would be able to sue the company for defrauding you. National Insurance is precisely that – insurance – so there is room to argue that the British citizens are being defrauded too.

How much of this ‘defrauding’ is going on? Yorkshire NHS managers are proposing to stop smokers and the obese from having hip and knee surgery, apparently on the basis that their lifestyle choices lower the chance of success of the operation.

Something has been overlooked here, though: the smokers and obese are due a refund. Not just from their National Insurance, but a hefty chunk of the 76% tax per pack of cigarettes goes to the NHS; smokers pay into the British treasury around £10 billion annually, and ASH estimate that they take out in healthcare costs between £1.5-2.5 billion a year, giving the public purse a very nice surplus. If they are not being given the treatment they have paid for, they should be given their money back.

This leads onto the premise that if the NHS is unable to provide what it exists for, why are we retaining it? If it really is losing money, and unable to treat the people paying for it, we would all be better off using the money we spend on it to pay private insurance instead, paying our own personal health fund that we know will be there when we need it.

Simon Clark has been kind enough to post two of my articles on The Free Society website. Click here to view the article on his site (and if you read it here, please at least click the link to give him the traffic) but i’ve included it here too so that people can comment if they want to.

According to a BBC report last year, thirdhand smoke is the “lingering residue from tobacco smoke which clings to upholstery, clothing and the skin releases”. Warning signs, say researchers, is the smell that lingers on a smoker’s clothing or in an area where someone has been smoking.

The concept came to public attention in 2009 courtesy of Dr Jonathan Winickoff, who also coined the term. Winickoff took his discovery to the media not on the basis of a study but a survey. Asked if they believed that “Breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of infants and children”, 65 per cent of non-smokers said “yes”. And so a new health threat was born.

While the perceived threat of secondhand smoke allowed legislators to ban smoking in enclosed public places, the alleged dangers of thirdhand smoke takes the war on tobacco one step further. According to Winickoff, smokers themselves are “contaminated”. They “actually emit toxins” he says.

How long will it be before smokers are excluded from certain professions, teaching or other forms of childcare, for example? Or perhaps they will be banned from hospitals in case they “contaminate” nurses and other patients.

Thirdhand smoke plays on the standard antismoking cry to “think of the children” (which tobacco control conveniently ignored when they sent smokers home from pubs to smoke around their families instead). Winickoff, for example, claimed that infants spend much more time closer to surfaces, like the floor, and thus ingest more of the toxic brew from tobacco smoke.

The big discrepancy though is that no study exists that demonstrates any harm from this tobacco residue, either in children or adults. It is all based on suppositions that are based on US Surgeon General Richard Carmona’s warnings to non-smokers that “there is no safe level of tobacco smoke” and even to “stay away from smokers”. The suggestion that tobacco smoke is dangerous in any dosage defies the basic knowledge of toxicology: “The dose makes the poison”.

Winickoff built on a 2004 study by Georg Matt that claimed that nicotine levels in the dust of children’s bedrooms in homes where parents commonly smoked indoors averaged about 40 micrograms per cubic metre. Worrying over such levels is akin to worrying that a child will get caffeine poisoning from a single Kit-Kat. At the same time it should be noted that while nicotine levels in the dust of children’s bedrooms may indicate that someone has been smoking, nicotine itself is harmless – addictive, perhaps, but harmless.

While it is true that miniscule smoke particles do exist and can cling to surfaces, the issue is not whether they exist but in what quantities. In his book Dissecting Anti-Smokers’ Brains, Michael McFadden wrote of secondhand smoke:

Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms!

For context, a nanogram is one billionth of a gram, a pictogram is a trillionth of a gram, and a femtogram is written as 0.000,000,000,000,001 grams.

The residue from secondhand smoke – what some people now call thirdhand smoke – is so miniscule it is absurd that it should cause anyone serious concern. Quite simply, if a femtogram of tobacco smoke residue is enough to damage our health, a single cigarette should be all but fatal.

Of course we have long crossed the line of absurdity when it comes to tobacco control. Far from objectively researching the issue, researchers now openly admit that their work is aimed at getting smokers to quit or promoting smoking bans. even in private homes.

Talking to Scientific American about his survey, Winickoff said: “This study points to the need for every smoker to try to quit.” He also argues that “Emphasizing that thirdhand smoke harms the health of children may be an important element in encouraging home smoking bans … Your nose isn’t lying. The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: ‘Get away.’”

We can apply this logic to anything whose smell we don’t like. If you don’t like the smell of deep-fried fish and chips does that mean you should run away from it? If science is telling us to fear smell, what hope do we have?

This is a copy of Frank Davis’s blog entry, which I thought you would all find interesting. Original entry here

My concern with smoking and smoking bans began one day in November 2004. I’d arrived at the River and bought a pint, and had sat down at my usual table to read that day’s Independent. On an inside page there was a small article saying that Sir Charles George, president of the BMA, and chairman of the BHF, was calling on the government to ban smoking in public places. He cited a new study which said that carbon nano-particles in smoke might cause an increased number of heart attacks.

‘Who the hell does he think he is?’ I wondered to myself, as I lit another roll-up. I’d never heard of any senior doctor calling for anything like this before, pulling in newspaper reporters and going public. Most doctors operated discreetly in the shadows. Not this one. I surveyed his smiling face in the photo, the jowls beneath his chin spilling over the collar of his shirt.

He wasn’t the last such swaggering doctor. Sir Liam Donaldson was soon to overshadow Sir Charles George, and there’ve been plenty of other doctors coming out of the woodwork of the Royal College of Physicians.

And I still don’t have an answer to the question ‘Who the hell do they think they are?’ or ‘How come they exert so much influence?’

But perhaps what happened was that there emerged a grand conjunction of a variety of antismoking organisations. In Britain there was Sir Richard Doll and Sir George Godber (not to mention my personal bete noire, the malignant Dr W, who inveighed against smoking like a hellfire preacher, and who regular attended BMA meetings). In the USA there was the AMA, a number of antismoking Surgeon Generals, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and a variety of (at the time) grassroot antismoking organisations. And then there was Gro Harlem Brundtland, who on becoming head of the WHO in the 1990s, shifted its emphasis towards ‘lifestyle medicine’ – tobacco, alcohol, and food. And the WHO was of course part of the UN. And then there was the emerging EU political aristocracy, of whom Brundtland was herself one, having been Prime Minister of Norway.

Assemble together this constellation of interested parties, all of whom meet each other regularly at conferences all around the world, and pump in huge amounts of taxpayer’s money, plus hundreds of millions of dollars from the Master Settlement Agreement in the USA, plus even more money from pharma companies peddling NRT, and a very powerful informal global coalition comes into existence. Its members have access to senior politicians all around the world, and to banks like the World Bank. And they control huge amounts of public and private money.

A few years beforehand, somebody like Sir Charles George was just another nobody doctor. Same for Sir Liam Donaldson. Nobody had ever heard of them. But now they were part of a very large global coalition of like-minded people. And when they asked for things to be done, they started to get done. They had clout like never before.

When Sir Liam Donaldson threatened to resign when the UK Labour government showed signs of not wanting a total smoking ban, it would have been an insignificant protest 10 or 20 years earlier. But now that Donaldson was a player in the emergent global antismoking consortium, he was a bit more than just Chief Medical Officer. He had friends in high places all around the world, who could be persuaded to look less favourably upon a loan here, or a trade agreement there. So Donaldson got his total smoking ban. And he got his big office too.

One important feature of this coalition of interested parties is that none of their members have been elected. Not in the AMA or RWJF or BMA or BHF or ASH or the WHO or the UN or the EU. None of them. These were people who were meeting up with each other in conferences, working out between themselves what they wanted done. Since they weren’t elected, they didn’t need to consult the public. They didn’t particularly want to anyway. They were the experts, after all. They’d done the research. Their job as doctors and researchers and experts was educate the public, and tell them what was good for them.

And now they were finding that, whereas in the past the politicians had seldom done what the doctors asked of them, suddenly the politicians had become more than willing to accommodate their requests. Smoking bans in all public places, without any loopholes for small bars or private clubs? No problem. Bans in parks and cars? Certainly. Concealed displays of tobacco, and plain packaging? Done. Floggings and nose-slittings for first offenders?

The politicians were finding themselves dealing with a very powerful, influential, and wealthy global coalition who could make life difficult for them in all sorts of ways if they didn’t go along with their demands. And in this new political reality, all the key decisions were agreed in private among the key players in the coalition. The smoking bans. The fines. The display bans. Etc, etc. This was the new post-democratic order. It was government by experts and by committees. The job of elected politicians was to implement the instructions that filtered down to them from the coalition.

So when the second most senior member of the the Con Lib Coalition government, Nick Clegg – himself a smoker – , says that there’s no more chance of the smoking ban being repealed than capital punishment being re-introduced, he’s actually telling us just what power these people exert.

And the same is true elsewhere. It’s said that one of the conditions of the Greek bail-out was that they impose a strict smoking ban. The same is probably true of Spain, which may well be needing to be bailed out soon too. In the corridors of power in the EU, in some meeting of key players, some senior doctor insisted that the bail-out funds be conditional on rigorous smoking bans. The demand was probably made over lunch in some Brussels restaurant, just after the asparagus had been served.

The politicians know perfectly well that they’re screwing their own people. Smoking bans shatter communities and bankrupt pubs and cafes. That’s why they can’t look them in the eye and talk to them about the rain of undemocratic rules and regulations they keep imposing on them. That’s why Cameron and Clegg and all the rest of them won’t ever talk about it. Because they’re no longer serving their own people, but a confederation of powerful interest groups which can, at a flick of a switch, shut off funding, close off hard-won exemptions, and enforce previously unenforced regulations. They spend their days in Westminster trying to placate nameless eminences grises who have more direct and immediate power over them than an electorate which only gets to have its say every 5 years or so, and whose votes are soon to be counted in ways which will be designed to neutralise public opinion anyway.

If so, more and more people will wake up to learn that their governments are more interested in serving the interests of international power-brokers and bankers and pressure groups than in serving their interests. It will become the peoples against their governments, all across Europe.