Max Keiser in this video, produced last summer, explains how Gordon Brown MP sold off the UK's sovereignty by putting 60 per cent of its gold bullion on the market below the market price. It's an illuminating talk, and the discussion of UK gold reserves starts about 19 minutes in.
This lecture is a resounding condemnation of current economic policy going back to the Thatcher era, but not letting anyone off since that financial meltdown of an era. It describes generally how interest rates are being kept low because that makes it cheaper for bankers to borrow in order to speculate. This is what enables the financial class to get rich while everyone else lives in fear of a rise in interest rates, because they are experiencing a squeeze on all fronts including housing costs and some people have been also borrowing too. Kaiser predicts that an expected international currency collapse will be particularly hard felt in the UK because of this disastrous sale of gold, leaving the UK without a tangible asset that the rest of the world is buying up.
This affects 'freedom to choose' significantly, showing how little it figures in the calculations of modern-day managers of the UK economy. From a Scottish perspective it heightens my interest in the independence proposition, because the Scottish Government's financial performance has been creditable by comparision. And it makes me wonder how George Galloway can sit through such a lecture and still declare that it is still in Scotland's best interests to stay in the union. He has argued that it is not 'real' independence if Scotland proposes to keep sterling, and this is a criticism that many on the independence side are making, but the sheer savagery of the UK's economic management makes one wonder why anyone would seriously want the Scottish people to stay on board.
Friday, 31 January 2014
Wednesday, 29 January 2014
'Zealotry plain and simple': e-cigarettes to be banned from Glasgow's Commonwealth Games
So says the Scotsman leader today. The games organisers, after taking advice from the public health community, announced their intention to ban e-cigarettes at the games, having last year announced their intention to ban tobacco.
Public health illuminary Sheila Duffy said:
These people, especially Duffy, have made a career choice out of the desire to stop people smoking. You would have thought that an anti-smoking sports event would be a lifetime's opportunity to encourage people to quit smoking because 'the single best thing you can do for your health is to stop smoking'. But that's not good enough, because it's not actually enough to stop smoking – you must do so in the approved way.
A Scotsman reader also remarks:
Public health illuminary Sheila Duffy said:
“The Commonwealth Games will showcase excellence and aim to build a healthy legacy for the next generation. Providing smoke-free environments during events will help deliver on that commitment, and the decision to exclude e-cigarette use should make enforcement more straightforward and also help put the appearance of smoking cigarettes out of fashion.”And from Health Minister Michael Matheson:
“I welcome this, as e-cigarettes are not regulated, nor have they been proven to be safe and effective.”This is nonsensical: Matheson's doubts about the 'effectiveness' of smoking are based on the assumption that they are designed as a smoking cessation tool. As an alternative to smoking there is no doubt of their effectiveness. You just put down a roll-up and pick up an e-cig: job done. As to the appearance of smoking cigarettes, these devices appear more like inhalers than cigarettes these days.
These people, especially Duffy, have made a career choice out of the desire to stop people smoking. You would have thought that an anti-smoking sports event would be a lifetime's opportunity to encourage people to quit smoking because 'the single best thing you can do for your health is to stop smoking'. But that's not good enough, because it's not actually enough to stop smoking – you must do so in the approved way.
A Scotsman reader also remarks:
Clever of them to wait until all the tickets have been sold before imposing this ban - and whatever others will be announced before the summer.For the avoidance of doubt, I don't approve of a smoking ban at the Commonwealth Games either. The public health community only seems to count as public health hazards things that they can blame on the general public: habits, including eating, drinking and smoking. The biggest offender in public health terms is multiple deprivation, and the Commonwealth Games stirred up controversy by accepting sponsorship from ATOS, the company notorious for declaring people of all shades of invalidity fit to work. Clearly there is more to this event than a friendly opportunity to compete internationally in sports, and even the public health community is set on laying unhelpful conditions to participation.
Saturday, 25 January 2014
Irish showdown over e-cigarettes shows lack of logic
Watch Clive Bates calmly demolish the logic of tobacco control in the Republic of Ireland:
The anti-smokers describe the need to classify e-cigarettes as medicines and then scratch their heads as to whether these 'medicines' work, when e-cigarettes have never been described smoking cessation medication by their manufacturers (and yet they clearly do work miles better than pharmaceutical alternatives). Kathleen O'Meara manages to suggest that unless smokers use e-cigarettes to give up smoking they are using them simply to 'get round the smoking ban' by using them in places where tobacco smoking is banned – even though no smoke is involved. Far from getting round the smoking ban the smokers concerned are in full compliance with the smoking ban – if the likes of Kathleen O'Meara can't tell the difference between smoke and water vapour that's not the fault of users.
For further remarks see Dick Puddlecote's review.
And more again: Carl V. Phillips explains why the tobacco control community should no longer be able to say 'we just don't know' the effects of e-cigarettes.
The anti-smokers describe the need to classify e-cigarettes as medicines and then scratch their heads as to whether these 'medicines' work, when e-cigarettes have never been described smoking cessation medication by their manufacturers (and yet they clearly do work miles better than pharmaceutical alternatives). Kathleen O'Meara manages to suggest that unless smokers use e-cigarettes to give up smoking they are using them simply to 'get round the smoking ban' by using them in places where tobacco smoking is banned – even though no smoke is involved. Far from getting round the smoking ban the smokers concerned are in full compliance with the smoking ban – if the likes of Kathleen O'Meara can't tell the difference between smoke and water vapour that's not the fault of users.
For further remarks see Dick Puddlecote's review.
And more again: Carl V. Phillips explains why the tobacco control community should no longer be able to say 'we just don't know' the effects of e-cigarettes.
Monday, 20 January 2014
Morning Call, BBC Radio Scotland covers e-cigarette banning, Monday 20 January
It's Monday morning, 9.30 GMT. Gerard Hastings just now saying that e-cigarettes is encouraging people to 'self-medicate on nicotine'. (What is use of nicotine patches if not self-medication on nicotine?) Go here for a discussion for the next hour.
Post-discussion
The official contributors to the programme, Sheila Duffy of ASH Scotland and former Health Minister Andy Kerr, attempted to give e-cigarettes a qualified thumbs-up but seemed hung-up on the idea of renormalising smoking, and, bewilderingly, encouraging nicotine addiction. The bright part was the callers. Caller after caller pointed out that banning e-cigarette use was counter-intuitive to efforts to discourage smoking, and many had been able to give up smoking since they started using e-cigarettes. Some of them were conversant with recent research, and able to compare favourably the numbers of children allegedly using e-cigarettes with those experimenting with smoking.
Two callers at the end who opposed e-cigarette use were particularly unconvincing: one of them pointed out that nicotine was a stimulant and nicotine in e-cigarettes keeps smokers addicted, and the other reported that having given up smoking forty years ago she tried e-cigarettes and enjoyed them. Hence they really should be banned as they are clearly a gateway back into smoking!
The confused kind of consensus to emerge out of all this was that e-cigarettes should be regulated rather than banned. Even I agree with regulation to the extent that (for example) there could be limits on nicotine concentrations for the general user. But there was also talk (by Andy Kerr) of regulating the appearance so that there is a less clear resemblance between the e-cigarette and smoking. Age restrictions might also be beneficial – one could have a minimum age of 16 for purchasing e-cigarettes, which would give e-cig users two years' advantage in terms of legal purchase. By the time they reached 18 they might find the cost advantages outweighed the attractions of experimenting with smoking (unless they were already smoking black market cigarettes of course).
Well done everybody who called the programme. Most of you put the case clearly and rejected the proposition of banning e-cigarettes decisively on the basis that they are an effective and safer alternative to smoking.
Post-discussion
The official contributors to the programme, Sheila Duffy of ASH Scotland and former Health Minister Andy Kerr, attempted to give e-cigarettes a qualified thumbs-up but seemed hung-up on the idea of renormalising smoking, and, bewilderingly, encouraging nicotine addiction. The bright part was the callers. Caller after caller pointed out that banning e-cigarette use was counter-intuitive to efforts to discourage smoking, and many had been able to give up smoking since they started using e-cigarettes. Some of them were conversant with recent research, and able to compare favourably the numbers of children allegedly using e-cigarettes with those experimenting with smoking.
Two callers at the end who opposed e-cigarette use were particularly unconvincing: one of them pointed out that nicotine was a stimulant and nicotine in e-cigarettes keeps smokers addicted, and the other reported that having given up smoking forty years ago she tried e-cigarettes and enjoyed them. Hence they really should be banned as they are clearly a gateway back into smoking!
The confused kind of consensus to emerge out of all this was that e-cigarettes should be regulated rather than banned. Even I agree with regulation to the extent that (for example) there could be limits on nicotine concentrations for the general user. But there was also talk (by Andy Kerr) of regulating the appearance so that there is a less clear resemblance between the e-cigarette and smoking. Age restrictions might also be beneficial – one could have a minimum age of 16 for purchasing e-cigarettes, which would give e-cig users two years' advantage in terms of legal purchase. By the time they reached 18 they might find the cost advantages outweighed the attractions of experimenting with smoking (unless they were already smoking black market cigarettes of course).
Well done everybody who called the programme. Most of you put the case clearly and rejected the proposition of banning e-cigarettes decisively on the basis that they are an effective and safer alternative to smoking.
Public authorities in Scotland ban e-cigarettes in public buildings
This escalation of banning e-cigarettes does look odd, doesn't it? They are even banned in some outdoor areas around public buildings.
The fear seems to be as expressed by a Glasgow health board spokesperson:
The only thing that needs to be done is regulation. Tobacco is regulated, and all consumer products require some regulatory oversight to protect consumers. There is no call whatever for a ban.
Health authorities who ban e-cigarettes because they make users look like smokers should take a good hard look at themselves. Having derided tobacco companies for the alleged health records of smoking for over 30 years, it seems perverse to ban the use of a product that can eliminate the most hazardous elements of smoking, namely the absorption of tar and smoke. If smokers can use this product at less than the cost of smoking, they may not return to smoking.
Anti-smokers have little to be complacent about. Illicit tobacco is becoming more plentiful on our streets, and can remove any price advantage that the less harmful product has.
Scottish public authorities need to get a grip on themselves. They provide a valuable service but they are not (or should not be) empowered to pronounce what recreational products the public should find 'acceptable'; or to assert ownership of 'public areas'.
The fear seems to be as expressed by a Glasgow health board spokesperson:
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said: “The use of e-cigarettes in NHS grounds perpetuates the idea smoking is acceptable in public areas.”But this approach seems very unscientific. E-cigarette use is not smoking. People are using e-cigarettes instead of smoking, either on a selective basis or completely. After being told more times than most of us have had hot dinners that there is nothing better for your health than stopping smoking, the device people are turning to in their thousands is now facing significant restrictions, and EU legislation still hovers over them.
The only thing that needs to be done is regulation. Tobacco is regulated, and all consumer products require some regulatory oversight to protect consumers. There is no call whatever for a ban.
Health authorities who ban e-cigarettes because they make users look like smokers should take a good hard look at themselves. Having derided tobacco companies for the alleged health records of smoking for over 30 years, it seems perverse to ban the use of a product that can eliminate the most hazardous elements of smoking, namely the absorption of tar and smoke. If smokers can use this product at less than the cost of smoking, they may not return to smoking.
Anti-smokers have little to be complacent about. Illicit tobacco is becoming more plentiful on our streets, and can remove any price advantage that the less harmful product has.
Scottish public authorities need to get a grip on themselves. They provide a valuable service but they are not (or should not be) empowered to pronounce what recreational products the public should find 'acceptable'; or to assert ownership of 'public areas'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)