 In August 2005 Tobacco ControlAuthorities in Norway published their first report on the status of the smokingban in Norway. Let mejust take you through the highlights of this report to give you an idea whatthese tobacco control monkeys are up to.
Firstly, thereport was prepared by the following entities:
Norwegian Institute for Drug and Alcohol Research
Research Centre for Health Promotion at the University of Bergen
The report wascommisioned by the Norwegian Directorate for Health and Social Affairs. Fromthis we gather that all of the entities involved in doing the survey and writingthe report have clear interests vested in the success of tobacco control. Thereport of course reflects this.
Economicanalysis
None of theentities involved in writing the report seem to have any knowledge abouteconomics, and certainly not anything as specialized as the hospitality sector.Any assesment in the report on the economic aspects of the ban will likely bescant and heavily skewed in favor of upholding prohibition.
Surveyscience
The Norwegianreport pretends to be balanced and scientific by presenting a variety ofsurvey results in the first 14 pages. Let's peek at some of this survey‘science’. Here from page 7:
"The high level of public acceptance of the ban may be a resultof the prelegislation information drive run on TV and radio and cinemaswhich highlighted passive smoking and the basic rights of staff to a cleanworking environment. The public trusted the information drive andsaid they learned a great deal about the smoking ban."
Okay, these twosentences are quite enough to analyze some basic tobacco control tricks:
-
prelegislation informationdrive: This is an acronym for propaganda. -
basic rights of staff to aclean working environment: This is the propagation of an artificialright. Absolutely nobody has a basic right to a clean workingenvironment. What exactly is a clean working environment anyway" Do coalminers have a basic right to a clean working environment" Obviously not. -
The public trusted theinformation drive: Everybody believed the propaganda. There was noopposition to the propagated view that ETS is harmful. So obviouslyeverybody believed it. On page 9 moresuperstition is conjured:
"Employees whobelieved the smoking ban was put in placeto improve workplace environment increased from 39 % to 47 %."
That is exactlywhat the ETS fraud is all about. People need to believe that ETS isharmful, or they would never agree to a ban. The passive smoke fraud is a tobacco control trick!
On page 10 thetobacco control spinners play the 'public support' card:
Figure 3.2 shows that the major support for the ban comes frompeople who are not affected by it - the nonsmokers. They have in any case beensubjected to massive amounts of propaganda that even smokers have troubledissecting.
Okay, enough onthis particular manipulation. The witch hunt is on in Norway, that isquite clear. Let’s take a look at the silliest claim that these tobaccocontrollers peddle in their 'report'.
Economicaspects
The reportsadmits that sales of draught beer went down by 6 %. Here's the story theyinvented, to cover up the fact that is was due to the ban (page 15, Section 5.1,second paragraph):
"The sale from breweries to supermarkets was more susceptible tofluctuation compared to bars and restaurants sale, mainly due to the price waron beer between the supermarkets."
Lie!
These guys aretrying to fob on us a story that people did not go to bars because the beerprices were lower in the supermarkets. Sure thing - everybody knows that when acan of Bud drops 5 cents, all the bars are deserted.
Bull Sh*t!
The amazingthing is that the press, the politicians and even the public will buy this loadof trash. It is really amazing what lies these tobacco control nuts get awaywith fabricating.
Tobaccosales
This is the bigjackpot. Let me demonstrate to you how tobacco control uses the ressources of anentire society to fabricate lies about how wonderful smoking bans are. We lookat tobacco sales in the wake of the ban.
Exactlycoinciding with the ban, taxes on tobacco products were increased dramatically,especially for rolling tobacco. From figure 6.6 on page 23, we have thefollowing claims:
|
