Wednesday, 2 April 2014

Drinking straws to be banned by Welsh government

Drinking straws greater than 3mm in diameter, such as those used by fast-food outlets, are to be banned in Wales next year because the Welsh government claim they act as a 'gateway' to cigarette smoking. "The action of placing a cylinder between the lips and intaking an external substance becomes ingrained in the very young, and makes it much more likely for them to smoke cigarettes" said the Welsh health minister. He quoted research by the University of Aberystwyth's Glenys Kinnock Health Enhancement Faculty, a fake charity funded by the Welsh government, that 94% of Welsh smokers aged 18 - 24 had previously used drinking straws when drinking soft drinks.

The Welsh government had decided against banning breast-feeding in Wales for the same reasons, and instead will introduce a voluntary scheme for Welsh mothers to feed only pre-expressed breast milk, and will provide interest-free loans for breast pumps and fridges. 

('Wales to ban e-cigarettes in public for gateway effect' on R4 'Today' programme this morning)


DeeDee99 said...

You seem to be a day late in posting this.

Anonymous said...

Ah DeeDee99, you stole my thunder!

Raedwald said...

Yes, Apols ... but couldn't resist

Michael said...

Years ago, Private Eye had a cartoon, which showed a tobacco pipe with a babies bottle teat instead of a normal stem.

I was outraged at this as I'd smoked a Falcon pipe for years, and never even thought of taking on milk at the same time!

Thankfully, the fragrant baahing Glenys has given me an idea, and I'm on my way to Aber...

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Not as good as the Salmond pound coin in yesterday's DT.

In general, this year's AF's seem to be only just unbelievable - probably because the things that are really done to us these days by the State, are only just believable - and only then because we've become inured to their outrages.

Anonymous said...

Yeah we jest.

But Radders paints a picture which is not so far from the reality. Alack, in some council fiefdoms, the local taliban/upholders of Sharia diktats go forth and...... we already have salt coordinators checking chipperies and their salt cellars for amount of holes in said dispensers.....yeah that one - is TRUE.

Jonty111 said...

Loof lirpa!

Anonymous said...

Many a true word said in jest...

Coney Island

opsimath said...

Very droll - but a day late, surely?

I love some of your 'whimsy' - thank you.

delcatto said...

Blow jobs lead to an increase in the smoking of Cuban cigars! Lefty righteous blow a fuse because Cuba = good but smoking = bad.

John M said...

If one applies the same argument and level of evidence to other areas of policy we quickly reach absurd situations.

So if we are going to ban eCigs simply because they "look" like real ones, can we sack all politicians because they look like serial killers?

Anonymous said...

“IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” — the three slogans of the Party from Orwell’s “1984″

Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

Anonymous said...

My argument has always been the level of so called proof required to prove disease outcomes where no proof actually exists. The Kessler rulings are based upon NO-PROOF. From the EPA study and Judge Osteens Verdict here:

The EPA fought to have Osteen's decision overturned on technical grounds, ignoring the multitude of facts in the decision. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen's court did not have jurisdiction. In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism in the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.

Then we go back to the Doll Hospital study there again no proof given,except to find Sir Richard Doll was using the exact same epidemiological criteria as what the Nazi anti-tobacco researchers used.

We then see the introduction of the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE from the RIO environmental summit in 1992 where it became observed law on an international Basis. The principle has become the '' DO NO HARM PRINCIPLE''. It gives no proof the same standing as having actual proof where no proof but a simple claim of harm is now all you need to pass a criminal law or convict!

It seems Judge Kessler is a wide believer in the principle yet in her BIO she was a member of the scientific evidence review board for federal guidelines on acceptable research to the courts...........

In that guideline Book it clearly states OSHA is the acceptable source on levels of harm!

Carmonas '' No safe Level '' Claim is literally not acceptable as evidence to anyone.

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

This sorta says it all

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

So when we state Junk Science that's exactly what it means junk science with out ever producing proof of harm to anyone at any level of actual proof!

7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.

"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.