|This double-sided flyer can be downloaded and printed in two runs onto a single A4 sheet.
Press here for side 1 and here for side 2.
You'll be surprised how popular you are when distributing them to total strangers, now so easy to spot, outside
pubs clubs and offices etc.. Great chat-up opportunity for all you WCSP singles out there!! Opportunity for serious
debate for all would-be politicians
|WE CAN SMOKE PARTY
Representing Britain’s 14 million smokers
Visit the website – http://www.wecansmokeparty.com
BRAND NEW SINGLE ISSUE PARTY
WCSP intend to field a candidate in every constituency at the next
General Election. If all of Britain’s 14 million smokers vote for WCSP
we win every seat and form the next Government. We then repeal the
smoking ban and resign allowing a normal election to take place.
Make It Happen. Join the party. Repeal the ban.
|___DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE BAN?
_________WHAT CAN YOU DO?
__1) Visit the website
__2) Tell every one you know about WCSP
__3) Download flyers from the site
__4) Distribute the flyers in person and leave them in
_____smoking areas for other smokers
__5) Send a donation to the party
__6) Inform pub landlords, club stewards and commiteemen and
__7) Post notices on work/college/union noticeboards
__8) Use MySpace etc. to spread the word
__9) Debate the unfairness of the ban
10) DO NOT lie down and accept the ban
DO YOU OPPOSE THE TOTAL SMOKING BAN?
DO YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
WITH YOUR HELP WCSP CAN WIN EVERY SEAT
AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION AND MAKE
THE SMOKING BAN HISTORY
BECOME AN ANTI-BANSTER!!!
|IF YOU OPPOSE THE BAN AND DO NOT TAKE
AT LEAST ONE OF THE ACTIONS BELOW THEN YOUR APATHY,
IF REPEATED BY BRITAIN'S 14 MILLION SMOKING VOTERS,
WILL ENSURE THAT THE BAN REMAINS FOREVER
AND EVEN MORE ANTI-SMOKER LEGISLATION WILL BE INTRODUCED
|* MAKE A DONATION TO HELP US PUBLICISE OUR EXISTENCE *
* TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW ABOUT THE PARTY AND THE WEBSITE *
* e-MAIL US WITH THE e-MAIL ADDRESSES OF 5 OF YOUR FRIENDS/COLLEAGUES WHO YOU KNOW
OPPOSE THE BAN *
* DOWNLOAD PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE THE LEAFLETS BELOW *
* VISIT ALL THE PAGES ON THIS SITE *
* BECOME A PARTY WORKER OR CONSTITUENCY CANDIDATE *
IF WE CAN INFORM BRITAIN'S 14 MILLION SMOKING VOTERS AND OTHER PRO-CHOICE VOTERS OF OUR
EXISTENCE WE CAN WIN EVERY SEAT AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION AND
MAKE THE SMOKING BAN HISTORY
We are asking everyone who opposes the smoking ban to e-mail us with a list of at least 5 e-mail addresses of
other people (family/friends/work colleagues/fellow students etc.), with their knowledge and consent, who they know
personally and have spoken to about opposing the ban using WCSP as the vehicle for their opposition.
If only 50 people who oppose the ban can each find another 5 within (say) 2 weeks, then we can e-mail those 250
"anti-bansters" and ask them to do the same.
If those 250 can each provide another 5 each within (say) a month, then we have 1,250 within 6 weeks.
6,250 within 10 weeks
30,000 within 14 weeks
150,000 within 4 months
at least 500,000 within 1 year
AND ON A LIGHTER NOTE
Courtesy of Sandra Jacqueline Colwell
DEATH OF SMOKING
When Dad was still a laddie
And Mum was just a filly
They got through 40 Kenisitas
And 50 Piccadilly
Daily then, between them.
And as far as I can tell
With Hitler trying to kill them
They reasoned "what the hell"?
Though 65 years later
It seems they were in error
As Tony "Education-Education
Who, while he didn't confiscate
the children's guns and knives
Became obsessed with running
other aspects of their lives
The scientific evidence to support the belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not
exist. Richard Doll's seminal paper in 1950 alerted the world to the link between smoking and lung cancer (when
82 per cent of British men were smokers). Over the next 30 years, the realisation that smokers risked serious
damage to their health led to a 50 per cent drop in the habit. But this divided people into three groups: more or
less addicted smokers, generally tolerant non-smokers and fiercely intolerant anti-smokers.
At the end of the Seventies, the anti-smokers first seriously turned their attention to what they called "passive
smoking". Over the next decade, it is fascinating to follow how, try as they might, they could not come up with the
evidence they wanted to prove that "environmental tobacco smoke" was directly harming non-smokers' health.
They became greatly excited by a series of studies which purported to show a link between smoking and cot
deaths. But these somehow managed to ignore the fact that, in the very years when cot deaths were rising by 500
per cent, the incidence of smoking had halved.
A further series of studies in the Nineties, mainly in the US, claimed to have found that passive smoking was
causing thousands of deaths a year. But however much the researchers tried to manipulate the evidence, none
could come up with an increased risk of cancer that, by the strict rules of epidemiology, was "statistically
In 1998 and 2003 came the results of by far the biggest studies of passive smoking ever carried out. One was
conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation. The other,
run by Prof James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat for the American Cancer Society, was a mammoth 40-year-long
study of 35,000 non-smokers living with smokers. In each case, when the sponsors saw the results they were
horrified. The evidence inescapably showed that passive smoking posed no significant risk. This confirmed Sir
Richard Doll's own comment in 2001: "The effects of other people's smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't
In each case, the sponsors tried to suppress the results, which were only with difficulty made public (the fact that
Enstrom and Kabat, both non-smokers, could only get their results published with help from the tobacco industry
was inevitably used to discredit them, even though all their research had been financed by the anti-tobacco
In the early years of this decade, the anti-smokers had become so carried away by the rightness of their cause
that they no longer worried about finding disciplined evidence for their statistical claims. One notorious but
widely-quoted study commissioned by 33 councils campaigning for a "smoke-free London" came up with the
wonderfully precise claim that 617 Britons die each year from passive smoking in the workplace. No longer was
there any pretence at serious debate. This was a propaganda war, in which statistics could be manufactured at
will. (The European Commission's 2006 figure for annual deaths from passive smoking in the UK was around
12,000, some 20 times higher than the figure quoted by the British Government itself.)
By the time the Commons pushed through the smoking ban in February 2006, a kind of collective hysteria had
taken over. MPs fell over themselves in boasting how many lives they were about to save. One Department of
Health official was quoted as equating its significance to the Act setting up the National Health Service in 1948.
As clouds of self-righteousness billow out over England, the anti-smokers may be entitled to give us their view that
smoking is a thoroughly noxious and nasty habit, even that it can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as
asthma or bronchitis arising from other causes. They can even claim that the ban will save lives by persuading
smokers to give up. But the one thing they cannot claim is any reliable evidence for their belief that passive
smoking is responsible for killing people. Sir Richard Doll was right. It is merely a sanctimonious act of faith.
He hammered them with posters
in workplace, club and station
A drug-addicted, overweight and
Marooned in gridlock traffic
From Windemere to Woking
And though they were unhappy
At least they were not smoking
I sometimes cast my mind back
To childhood in soft focus
Mainly recollected through the
fog of family smokers
And wonder if we're healthier
Or happier - though I doubt it.
Perhaps I'll ask my parents
(in their eighties) all about it.
|WE CAN SMOKE PARTY
REPRESENTING BRITAIN'S 14 MILLION SMOKERS