Today, for some reason or other, the post that I wrote some time ago about the law on growing tobacco plants in Australia received about ten times the normal daily rate of hits; also, most of them were ‘first time’ visitors.
If you google “Tobacco plant growing law in Australia”, the top reference is my humble contribution, but there is not normally much activity. Today has been a bit of a surprise. Here is a link to my post:
It might be interesting to summarise the Australian law just for fun.
A law was passed in Australia in 1901. Essentially, this statement covers it:
Grow, deal in and move tobacco seed, plant or leaf. Before you can grow tobacco seed, plant or leaf you need a producer licence granted under the Excise Act.Before you can deal in (i.e. buy and sell) tobacco seed, plant or leaf you need a dealer licence granted under the Excise Act.Before you can move tobacco seed, plant or leaf you need permission granted under the Excise Act.
I have often wondered why that Act was passed in 1901. I doubt that there was any other country in the world which had such a law at that time. I can only guess that it was passed to protect ‘vested interests’. We must remember that Australia, at that time, which still very much an ‘aristocracy’, where vast tracks of the land were owned by a few aristocratic families.
Looking at the ‘Constitutional history of Australia’ is interesting:
This is not intended to be a history of Australia. All I am interested in is the ‘status’ of Australia in 1901. Here is an interesting quote:
It was then passed (with an amendment allowing for some appeals to the Privy Council in London) as an Act of the British Parliament: the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The Act entered into force on 1 January 1901, at which point the Commonwealth of Australia came into being.
There’s 1901 again.
Note also this quote:
The Constitution provided that the British monarch be represented in Australia by a Governor-General, who was originally appointed on the advice of the British, not the Australian, government, and was generally a British aristocrat.
Ummm….. The Act protecting aristocratic tobacco production was passed in 1901. Clever, doncha think?
It seems that Australia only became fully ‘independent’ in 1931:
By the mid-1920s, it was accepted by the British government that dominions would have full legislative autonomy. This was given legislative effect in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster 1931. The Statute took effect in Australia in 1942 with the passing of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, with retroactive effect to 3 September 1939, the start of World War II. The adoption of the Statute repealed the application of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 in relation to federal legislation. However, the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 continued to have application in individual Australian states until the Australia Act 1986 came into effect in 1986.
Perhaps the above gives us a clue as to why Australia was chosen as one of the Nations to be battered by ‘Tobacco Control’. Although Australia is huge, it has only a small population, comparatively speaking; I suppose that is because vast tracks of it are desert (‘the outback’), but it also has a swath of tropical rain forest as well. Also, despite its size, it is an island, and thus, having no land connections with other countries, it is, comparatively speaking, more difficult to smuggle stuff into. But most of all, because it has this ancient, protection-racket law against growing your own tobacco plants. A perfect place to take matters to the extreme.
But Australians are famed for being tough and uncompromising in defending their individual, personal rights, aren’t they? You know ….. “Crocodile Dundee” and all that? Swimming champions of the world? The cricketer, Don Bradman? The Australian rugby union team?
WHAT HAPPENED TO AUSTRALIA?
It was set up, that’s what, the same as Ireland. Vast funds were allocated, politicians inserted, possibly through Common Purpose interventions. It might have taken ten or fifteen years, or more, to put the “IRON TRIANGLE” in place – the ACADEMICS, the DEPT OF HEALTH, the BIG PHARMA, all mutually supporting and protecting each other with money, power and influence.
IT WAS DELIBERATE.
Ireland was chosen on much the same basis – an island (despite the Northern Ireland connection), a war-weary people, very dependent upon the EU for its continuing prosperity, several crazy politicians and a dominant medical profession. But what have the people done? They have done what the people have been doing since time immemorial – they have taken the matter into their own hands, ignoring laws and regulations. White Van Man, Chop Chop, Home Growing,
But there are still a lot of dumbbells about. I went to the local co-op today to get enough red vino for tonight – three litres. In front of me was a thirty-something who bought a 25 gram packet of RYO. I was sorely tempted to teach him about ‘whole leaf’, or the virtues of Spain or Prague, but, to be honest, I do not think that he would have understood. You see, if you have a credit card, you can venture to, say, Mallorca for a couple of days, and buy, say, thirty sleeves at a cost of about £900. You do not need to ‘cash rich’. The cost savings will amply cover the interest on the credit card. In the UK, the purchase would cost around £1800. If the cost of the trip was, say, £200 for the flight and £100 for the hotel, you would be £400 in profit – and you would have enjoyed a nice break. In fact, I always discount the cost of the flight and hotel, because they are enjoyable in themselves. A non-smoker pays these costs for fun, so why should not we? Why should we count such costs against the value of our purchases? Thus, a three day ‘holiday’ might cost £300. During that holiday, and separately, one buys £1800 pounds-worth of fags for £900 – saving, £900. That ‘saving’ has nothing to do with the holiday. To put it another way, suppose that a person went on a golfing holiday with friends. He would count any tobacco product purchases as a bonus, and not as a reason for the holiday.
It is people like the dumbbell, people who smoke little, who are still throwing their hard-earned cash at the Treasury. But it is because they smoke little that they continue to punish themselves financially. How stupid! It is precisely those people who should take a short trip to Prague, Benidorm or Belgium to stock up for a full year.
But they do not KNOW. There is an advert on the TV which is repeated over and over. It is for travel insurance. The wife says, “Hope you get a hole in one! Me? I’m off to Venice with the girls”.
It is odd that they have not worked it out for themselves. I do not understand, since it it obvious. I’m not talking about impoverished people who could not get a credit card. I’m talking about people who can and do go on an annual holiday, but fail to take advantage. A friend of mine goes on holiday to the Canaries, which is not part of the EU. Tobacco is very cheap there. Theoretically, his goods could be confiscated, but he has never been stopped yet.
We have said, again and again, that vapers and smokers should ‘love one-another’. In our beleaguered situation, both groups have to REJECT attempts by TC to split them. Shops which sell e-cig stuff should give every purchaser a leaflet attacking the Health Department’s attitude to both Vaping and Smoking.
The ‘Iron Triangle’ needs to be melted.
I mentioned the idea of writing a post on ‘The Iron Triangle’ yesterday. In the comments ‘brainyfurball’ apologised for pinching the subject, but there is nothing to apologies for. “All in it together”. In any case, I picked up the idea from elsewhere myself – can’t remember where now. But ‘brainyfurballs’ gives a link:
That is not where I saw it first, but it is much the same. Plaudits to Paul M Johnson.
This picture shows the basic idea:
The diagram is a triangle, but it could just as easily be a quadrangle or a pentangle, but clearly the triangle would be strongest of all because of the lack of complexity.
First, however, a couple of notes. The use of the word ‘iron’ is intended to indicate ‘the strength’ of the arrangement. It is almost foolproof. Looking at the pic, you can see that all the groups involved can protect themselves from outside interference. They can pursue their objectives and ‘repel boarders’ with ease.
But looking more closely, you see that there is an outer series of advantages for the participants and an inner series. Thus, from ‘Interest Groups’ flows ‘electoral support’ to members of congress, and from members of congress flows ‘friendly legislation’ to ‘Interest Groups’. For example, Tobacco Companies, in their heyday, undoubtedly ‘bought’ protection from Members of Congress by contributing to their campaign funds. In the triangle we would see ‘funds to congress’ on the outside, and ‘protection’ on the inside (or vice-versa).
Regarding ‘The Tobacco Control Industry’ and the WHO, we need to put different groups into place at the apexes of the triangle. But where to start? ‘brainyfurball’ had ‘tobacco control’, ‘Big Pharma’ and ‘Tobacco Companies’ at the apexes. He/she might be right, and that could be another, separate iron triangle, but I personally do not see it that way. There is no need for tobacco companies to want to be involved because they know that their customers base will grow anyway. Also, TC has specifically excluded them totally – TC does not need them.
I really should try to master ‘Paint’ so that I could create a triangle which looks like the above, but it is too much trouble for an occasional user. Instead, let’s just replace the words. Take the top apex. The word is ‘Congress’. That indicates ‘The Power’ – the power to actually make laws. So let’s replace that word with another. In the case of the UK and tobacco control, I suggest that the replacement words should be ‘The Health Department’. I know that the DoH does not directly have the power, as compared with Parliament, but recent events have shown that the DoH gets its way every time, and that Politicians are too ignorant or scared to intervene, so ‘DoH’ will do to represent ‘The Power’.
On the left apex, we could ask ourselves what group represents ‘the interest group’. I would suggest ‘Academics’, but that word also represents the Medical Establishment as a whole. The reason for using the word ‘Academics’ will become clear in a moment.
What group should be places at the right apex? Yes, you are right. It is ‘The Drugs Companies and Foundations’. Those two can be unified because of ‘commercial links’. Thus, the Gates Foundation gets its money from commercial investments. It has major shareholdings in drugs companies, thus it is advantageous for the Gates Foundation to push nicotine patches and gum etc – drug company products. Let’s call this unified entity ‘Big Pharma’ (including the ‘Foundations’ within the word).
Going back to the left apex – ‘Academics’ – their importance seems to be of minor importance at first sight, but we must think. The reality is that ‘The Academics’ are absolutely fundamental to the success of the Triangle. It is ‘The Academics’ who provide the justification. Justification is of paramount importance to the ‘IRON’ of the triangle. The ‘Justification’ documents do not need to be true. They can be refuted, but the refutation does not matter. They are there only to provide temporary justification. Studies and Surveys do the business.
I have been looking back at ‘The Hospital Study’ by Hill and Doll (about 1950, but probably planned some years earlier). That study was the precursor to ‘The Doctors Study’. It was small scale. I personally believe that it was conducted to justify the costs of the huge Doctors Study. I’ve been trying to find out what organisation funded the Hospital Study. The best that I can do is this: “Sir Ernest Kennaway and Dr. Percy Stocks took part in a conference called by the Medical Research Council, at which this investigation was initiated, and we have been fortunate in having their helpful advice throughout its course.” I think that the highlighted words suggest that it was the Medical Research Council which funded that study.
The Doctors Study followed on immediately after the end of the Hospital Study. In fact, the delay between the two was less than a year. Plans for the Doctors Study MUST have already been in place. I believe, but am not certain, that the British Medical Research Council also funded the Doctors Study – at least at the start. I don’t know where the British Medical Research Council got its money from.
So we have the apexes:
Top: The Health Dept, being THE POWER.
Left: The Academics, being the providers of justification.
Right: Big Pharma, providing funding and bribes with the objective of increasing their business and profits.
A perfect ‘iron’ triangle.
But do we notice what is missing? For a start, Tobacco Companies are totally excluded, as per the FCTC. But also, individuals who enjoy tobacco are also totally excluded. They are regarded as ‘tobacco company shills simply because they enjoy tobacco products, in that they contribute to tobacco company profits. Consumers are excluded totally.
Also, we should note that ASH ET AL are also excluded. They are of no importance, other than having the minor task of publicising the decisions of the triangle. Even the WHO is not included in itself. Also, the FCTC is only a treaty, and a very weak treaty. Any nation which wishes to ignore it, can do with impunity. In fact, a fair number of signatories have not complied with the Treaty in that they have made no financial contributions at all. The USA signed the treaty but never ratified it, and has paid not one cent to it. The UK is the biggest contributor.
The ‘Tobacco Control Division’ of the WHO is not in the triangle, which means that the WHO TC Division is just a useful tool for the Triangle to support and exploit.
Are there weaknesses in the Triangle?
In itself, it is very strong, but it relies upon only one of its apexes for its durability. That apex is THE POWER. For example, in the image at the top of this post, what is the weak point? It is CONGRESS! Congress can melt the iron and destroy the Triangle. The equivalent in our putative example is ‘The Health Dept’.
It is unlikely that ‘The Health Dept’ in the UK will melt. But it is possible that other department will begin to be affected by the demands of the Triangle, and start to complain. For example, it is perfectly obvious that all the demands of The Triangle’ are destructive, in the same way that windmills are costly and useless as generators of electricity as compared with power stations. The enormously expensive ‘Tobacco Prohibition Movement’ is destroying pubs and clubs in vast numbers, without any reciprocal savings at all – unless you believe in the Pell magical transformation of the Doll ‘discoveries’ of THE VERY LONG TERM effects of the enjoyment of tobacco into short term effects.
What can be done to destroy The Triangle’? It would be easy, if only politicians would consider the wishes of individuals rather than the wishes of ‘The Triangle’.
Is it not very easy? Rather than ‘The Chief Medical Officer’ dictating, ought not the elected ‘Minister for Health’ say, “You will obey obey my instructions. You will not give me instructions. Nor will you pay for or instigate any ‘studies’ or ‘surveys’ without my express permission. “Get behind me, Satan!” My job is about curing the sick. It is up to the ‘Safety Dept’ to deal with things like tobacco.
Is that not true? Tobacco use is a matter of ‘Safety’ and not ‘Health’.
An interesting idea which needs to be explored.
I don’t know how many people will have heard about ‘The Iron Triangle’. I was thinking about writing a post about it, but I have been too busy today to do the necessary homework. Maybe tomorrow night…….
In the meantime, I hope that readers are not bored by ‘The Curing Box”.
JB from Ireland and I have been working together to create a baccy flue-curing chamber which works as near perfectly as possible. If the system works, the it is possible to produce smokable tobacco in around five days. She has been using an old chest freezer, while I have built a box out of white chipboard which used to be a wardrobe. JB’s freezer is roughly around 4′ x 3′ x 2′, or thereabouts; my box is 40″ high x 20″ long x 17″ wide. She tends to have a lot of leaves maturing at the same time, and thus needs more space, whereas my leaves tend to mature over a longer time-scale, so that I can take leaves a few at a time. A ‘lot’ of leaves in this context is around 100 – a ‘few’ is around 30.
Since I posted this pic:
Since I took that pic, I’ve insulated it with scraps of polystyrene which I had in the garage. It is all very ‘Heath Robinson’ at the moment. (I was going to put hinges on the ‘flap’ (bottom front) and the lid, but I’ve decided not to bother – it’s easier just to shift them, and that is not often required)
Very briefly, on the base of the box is an electric ‘slow cooker’ (aka, crock pot). It seems to have two electric heating elements so that it can be operated on a ‘low’ setting or on a ‘high’ setting. As far as I know, it has no thermostat control. It is essentially a simple device which you can use to gently cook food over several hours. Excess heat is dissipated to atmosphere.
It’s ‘gentleness’ is what makes it perfect for our purpose because we want heat levels of only 35ºC at first, and only 65ºC later on (with the possible need for somewhat higher temperatures at the end of the process). There is no danger from having it switched on with nothing in the pot.
A minimum requirement is a thermostat to switch the cooker on and off. Here is a pic:
The thin black wire is the probe. When the probe ‘senses’ that the temp is 35ºC where it is positioned inside the box, the thermostat switches off the power. I have the ‘difference’ set to 1ºC, so that, when the temp falls to 34C, the stat switches the power back on. Simple but perfect.
Again briefly, the ‘fermentation’ of the leaves (turning starches into sugars) takes place, ideally, between around 30C and 40C, and takes around 3 days. During the ‘fermenting’, the leaves turn from green to yellow. But the leaves do not have to be at 30C/40C to turn yellow! But they will not ferment unless they are between 30 and 40! You see the problem? In the old days in the mid 1800s, it was the experience of curers of tobacco which dictated processes. Needless to say, Universities got in on the act and started to dictate – precisely how hot should a barn be; precisely how damp should it be; precisely how should the ventilation be controlled; precisely how much fuel should be used to heat the barns, etc. These ‘studies’ became ‘the knowledge’, but I wonder how many experienced curers of tobacco took any notice?
Needless to say, there are lots of complexities, but not in the machinery. The complexities revolve around the maturity of the leaves, their size, their number in the cabinet, venting, premature drying of the extremities of the leaves, and so on. Lots of them.
So we have been conducting experiments. JB says that a specific leaf produced a pleasant smoke. That leaf was in a specific state of yellowness, having been subjected to the right temperature for the right period of time and dried correctly.
Now, this might sound as though the prospect of correctly curing works with only one leaf out of a dozen! No!!!! It is a matter of finding out how your particular ‘curing chamber’ works best!
Mine has produced a mix of about 50/50, so far. Half of the leaves are as perfectly yellow as possible, and have been cured at the perfect temperature, but the other half are rather browner than they should be, and, possibly, have ‘over-fermented’, even at the temperature of 35ºC. That depends upon the state of the individual leaves.
Are we describing an impossible situation? Certainly not! We are learning to pick leaves which are more or less in the same ‘state’ (of pale greenness, for example), and to place them in the cabinet in the best position, depending upon their size. Or, in my case, to towel them according to size and maturity. It is not difficult – it is a matter of understanding and experience. Thus, to be sure that I am correctly understood, I used to just pick leaves indiscriminately. Now, I look at their ‘condition’ in the first place. I pick leaves according to their condition, and then sort them out for towelling according to their size. It is very easy, once you know what you are doing.
Enough. But is there not something in these experiences which can be applied in other areas? For example, take the ‘Doctors Study’. Doll et al took the simple path of counting the number of dead doctors and the cause of their deaths, and drew conclusions that condemned the enjoyment of tobacco. Their methods of gaining information were simple enough – death certificates and enquires derived therefrom, but only to confirm that lung cancer deaths were definitely so (whether they were or not). But, as we have seen in the above about curing tobacco, there is not one single FACTOR involved in anything. When a person dies, it is not from one single factor (apart from bullets and accidents).
The WHO, acting on the directions of ‘THE ELITE’ (aka Doll et al), put it about that only ONE FACTOR caused LC – tobacco, and upon that ONE FACTOR has been built the whole, massively expensive, citadel of ‘The Tobacco Control Industry’ and its offshoots.
Is there an answer?
Well, at the moment, No. That is because of the ‘Iron Triangle’. More about that tomorrow – hopefully.
How many times have we heard the phrase ‘Common Sense’ used? It must be in the millions. But what does it mean? “Just use your common sense” is very common. Even Judges use the phrase from time to time.
‘Common Sense’ says that, if peeling an orange and eating it produces no population-wide problems, then peeling an orange and eating it is a ‘safe’ thing to do. But what do we mean by ‘population-wide’ problems?
According to Public Health, even a single incident of ‘harm’ from peeling and eating an orange requires countless expensive studies to discover ‘the problem’ which, they say, is ‘population-wide’. But the problem is not ‘population-wide’ – it would apply to only a few individuals. It never seems to occur to the those who finance the ‘countless studies’ that COMMON SENSE suggests that there must be something wrong with the eater of the orange rather than the orange itself, because these incidents are so few. That is very important. Tiny numbers mean individual susceptibility.
PUBLIC HEALTH does not ‘do’ individual.
When ‘Public Health, England’ was established, I had high hopes that the CEO would be different: that he would be wringing the necks of Zealots. Sadly, it seems that he needs his neck wringing. The CEO has turned out to be a ‘junior clerk’, who does what he is told.
“Common Sense” would look at Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ and ask why so many smokers DID NOT develop LC. “Common Sense ” would demand answers to that question. The question is extremely relevant – far more relevant than why some smokers developed LC. To be clear, only a small number of even the heaviest smokers developed LC. The numbers were far greater than the incident in non-smokers, but were still small as the cause of death. Only some seven out of a hundred expired due to LC. Ninety three expired for other reasons. Does it matter that only one non-smoker expired from LC in comparison? I think not. Death from LC is no different from any other cause of death.
The Zealots have spread the idea that death from LC is, somehow, particularly drawn out and painful. What rot! LC acts rapidly and there ought not to be pain. My brother-in-law died from stomach cancer, as had his father. In the final stages, he had no pain. Maybe he would have had, had it not been for ‘medication’. Perhaps that was so.
But such ailments do not necessarily cause pain. I saw my dying mother. She was not in pain. She was old and weak. I saw my dying father. He had had a stroke. He was not in pain. He had another stroke and expired. My sister had breast cancer which spread. In her final hours, she was not in pain. She drifted away. Her husband, as I have mentioned, was the same.
Thus, “Common Sense” dictates that all the talk about “disgusting, filthy, stinking, painful deaths” is shit of the most shitty kind.
It is a matter of fact, for anyone who has visited a hospital ward where the patients are very old and on their ‘last legs’, that there is no ‘screaming from the pain’. It simply is not true that dying people, in the main, are in great pain, although some might be, in which case morphine is the answer.
But again “Common Sense” dictates. It is a matter of fact that, if one lies in bed, totally still, one never feels pain. That is how animals accept death. They lie down and stop moving. And that is how humans also deal with pain. Just stop moving.
We have not finished with this subject yet. Common Sense, Science and Justice go together. What is ALIEN is the distortion of the reality by the WHO and Public Health in general. Even worse is the ALIEN attitude of out MPs. We, THE PEOPLE, use Common Sense. Our MPs seem to be devoid of this attribute. In fact, they seem to be DEVOID, period.
Our political system stinks.
There has been something bouncing around in my mind for some time and I could not put my finger on it. I was vaguely ruminating, as one does, and something clicked. It is not a fully thought-through idea, but I’ll write this as I think.
I am sure that we are all aware that the WHO has recommended that ecigs should be banned in enclosed places (surprise, surprise). This propaganda suggestion is blatantly the work of the Big Pharma Companies which the WHO represents. And the reasoning is also blatant nonsense – literally. “We do not know what the long-term effects on ‘passive vapers’ will be, so make sure that there are no passive vapers so that no one will EVER know what the effects on passive vapers will be”. Re-work that sentence with a few clever words, and Bob’s yer uncle – vaping banned in pubs. But it was the evidence that the WHO produced which led me to think.
Here is a quote from the McTear Case (2005) [See Sidebar]. The Judge said:
(1.5) The pursuer can succeed in this case only if she proves all of the following:
(1) that cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer;
(2) that cigarette smoking caused Mr McTear’s lung cancer;
(3) that Mr McTear smoked cigarettes manufactured by ITL [Imperial Tobacco] for long enough and in sufficient quantity for his smoking of their products to have caused or materially contributed to the development of his lung cancer;
(4) that Mr McTear smoked cigarettes manufactured by ITL because ITL were in breach of a duty of care owed by them to him; and
(5) that such breach caused or materially contributed to Mr McTear’s lung cancer, either by making at least a material contribution to the exposure which caused his lung cancer or by materially increasing the risk of his contracting lung cancer.
Now then. Can you see the similarity between that and Science? The connections are the precision, the required ‘proofs’ and the ‘quantification’. There is nothing vague about it. [In the event, the Judge said that 'the pursuer' had failed on every point, and kicked the whole thing out. He complained strongly that 'the pursuer' (nominally, Mrs McTear, but actually ASH, acting for The Medical Profession', especially the Royal College of Physicians) had brought no evidence that smoking causes lung cancer]
Now, let us consider Tobacco Control. What are TC’s stated objectives? The overall objective is “to make the smoking of tobacco history” (paraphrased). Suppose that objective was placed before a Judge. Would not that Judge lay out the required actions with some precision, one by one, and require TC to lay out its programme before him to achieve that objective? Who is the Judge in ‘The Case of Tobacco Eradication’? In the UK, it is Parliament. It really is, because Parliament exists to stop injustices being perpetrated by the Executive.
But TC has never been required to lay out its FULL programme, and Parliament has never had the opportunity to examine that programme. Taking the smoking ban to start with, how did TC manage to wangle a ban for adults, especially in places which children rarely go, and almost never alone, and then, once that ban have been forced, move on the children? It seems to me to be similar to the idea of the Victorians ignoring vast numbers of infant mortalities and concentrating on deaths due to horse trampling. (In fact, they might have done just that, for all I know).
So let’s just consider the WHO recommendation about ecig use with the above in mind. We are thinking in terms of SCIENCE and JUSTICE. Let us imagine that the WHO has already laid its full programme for ‘the eradication of tobacco smoking ‘before The Court, and received approval. Now, it has approached The Court with an amendment to its programme to include ecigs. What will the WHO be require to show?
(1.5) The pursuer can succeed in this case only if she proves all of the following:
(1) that ecig smoking can cause lung cancer;
(2) that ecig smoking caused Mr McTear’s lung cancer;
(3) that Mr McTear smoked ecigs manufactured by XXX for long enough and in sufficient quantity for his smoking of their products to have caused or materially contributed to the development of his lung cancer;
(4) that Mr McTear smoked ecigs manufactured by XXX because XXX were in breach of a duty of care owed by them to him; and
(5) that such breach caused or materially contributed to Mr McTear’s lung cancer, either by making at least a material contribution to the exposure which caused his lung cancer or by materially increasing the risk of his contracting lung cancer.
When the WHO made its recommendation, did it produce any evidence of that nature? Absolutely not. Nothing at all remotely connected. Nothing. It said that ecigs produce SOME particulates from the gradual deterioration of the tiny heating element, and claimed, without specific evidence, that these particulates are as bad as tobacco smoke. The only other ‘evidence’ was, “We do not know [and do not want to know] what the long-term effects might be” (which I have already mentioned), which is not evidence of long-term harm.
Why have they not done lab experiments with hamsters? They did with tobacco (failed – perhaps that is why they have not). And it would be extremely simple, since hamsters have a short life-span. Just have 100 hamsters, genetically engineered to get lung cancer easily (how do they do that?) and let them run about in cages as they do, but ensure that they breath an atmosphere which is laced with ecig vapour. Also, have a similar control group which does not. Treat both groups equally in terms of warmth, food, water, etc. Wait for them to die. Do ‘post mortems’, looking for evidence of particulates of burnt tungsten, cyanide, etc, and record the events. The evidence would be:
1) More hamsters died in the affected group than in the control group,
2) Those that died in the affected group had more burnt tungsten, cyanide, etc, in their lungs than the control group,
3) It was the excess of burnt tungsten, cyanide, etc which caused their death.
Do you see how we are approaching something scientific and just? The just and scientific demands are:
1) That the exposed hamsters inhaled more ‘toxins’ than the control group.
2) That it was the toxins which caused the deaths of the hamsters in the exposed groups.
3) That more hamsters in the exposed group died than in the control group.
Even if all these requirements were present, there would still be uncertainties, but, at least, it would be reasonable evidence.
Clearly, the WHO Tobacco Control charlatans have over-reached themselves. They have resorted to easily debunked lies.
But will The Court, Parliament, fail in its duty to ensure that the SCIENCE and the JUSTICE are compatible with the WHO’s recommended ban? It completely failed with the smoking ban, and has completely failed with the proposed PP and smoking-in-cars ban, and we know why. It is because The Courts (being Parliamentary Committees), which examined these matters, were rigged.
If it is so bad in an ancient democracy (of sorts) like ours, think how bad it is in the EU and the UN. Bribery and Corruption cannot help but be rife. Let’s face it, if a person has the opportunity to raid the open treasure chest without the possibility of repercussions, who could resist the temptation?
I haven’t even mentioned ‘Common Sense’.
Damnation! I have been much distracted tonight by the ‘curing box’ and stuff. How time flies! Is it not weird how, with some tasks, time flies, but with other tasks, time stagnates. It seems to me that the more complex a task is, the more quickly time flies; the more simple and repetitive a task is, the more time drags.
Whatever… It is very late.
Just a couple of amusements.
The BBC ‘News’ has just run a little article on TV about e-cigs. It was only about 15 seconds. It was pointless, but propaganda. It showed a mother and baby, and the mother said (words to the effect), “It should all be banned”, as she stuck her finger into the babies mouth. Believe it or not, the BBC produced an ‘expert professor’, who claimed that EVERYTHING AT ALL must be banned until evidence produced by the banned use produces evidence of the safety of the banned use. Talk about mad professors.
And I really think that these ‘professors’ are mad. Not in the sense of being lunatics, precisely, but in the sense of being disconnected from the real world. They are like the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland – perfectly logical, provided that their initial suppositions are correct.
The programme was, as usual, replete with propaganda mental slitherings. For example, showing a girl puffing, and MASSES of ‘smoke’ appearing from her mouth. Interestingly, the same ‘piece’ is even now appearing on BBC News. The Mad Professor has, once again, said that ecigs should be banned until using them produces a long-term effect, either good or bad. “This penicillin stuff seems to be great, but the evidence of its effectiveness is scarce. The use of this penicillin stuff must be banned until its non-use proves that it is effective”
The professor guy who appeared in the BBC news item is truly ‘mad’. Even if what he said was ‘propaganda’, he is truly mad. The reason is that no professor who is sane should be claiming that the ‘non-use’ of a substance or thing can prove its effectiveness.
I don’t know quite how to put this, but it seems to me that this ‘Mad Professor’ has an address. He has publicly stated nonsense, on the BBC. The Nonsense is that you you can prove the safety of an implement by not using it. Perhaps the Mad Professor should be made aware of his Madness. His madness could only be excuse if, in fact, he was not mad, but was being paid handsomely to pretend to be mad.
That article has coincided (!) with a YouGov survey tonight (is there a link between the BBC and YouGov?). The Survey asked the following questions (I actually had the presence of mind to ‘copy and paste’ the questions):
Recently a product has been marketed in the UK that looks like a cigarette and allows you to inhale nicotine vapour. Some produce a small amount of vapour from the tip but they do not burn tobacco or create smoke. They are sometimes called e-cigarettes.
Which of the following statements BEST applies to you?
|I currently smoke e-cigarettes|
|I have tried e-cigarettes in the past 12 months but do not currently smoke them|
|I have tried e-cigarettes longer than 12 months ago but do not currently smoke them|
|I have never tried e-cigarettes|
Note the intrusion of the word ‘smoke’ , rather than ‘vape’, or ‘inhale’, or ‘enjoy’, etc. If there is not ‘smoke’, then people who use them are not ‘smoking’.
But then we move on to the next question:
Thinking about TOBACCO CIGARETTE SMOKING…
Which of the following statements BEST applies to you?
|I am seriously considering quitting smoking in the next 3 months|
|I might consider quitting smoking in the next 3 months|
|I am not considering quitting smoking in the next 3 months|
I am seriously considering ‘quitting’. I’m not quite sure what I might ‘quit’. But there is something not quite right about the word ‘quit’. I suppose that it might just mean ,”Leave this place” – just for now. Every night I ‘quit’ the enjoyment of tobacco when I go to bed; I also ‘quit’ enjoying alcohol; I also ‘quit’ shagging Brigitte Bardot, or Her Majesty. Thankfully, I need not quit not eating, since not eating has kept me slim. There again, not eating and being slim might be a ‘life style’ problem which needs to be addressed – far too many people are too thin ‘for their own good’. After all, it was the ‘fatties’ who had the best chance of surviving Auschwitz.
Weird or What?
The even crazier Irish ‘Health Person’ has pronounced. She reckons that there is little smuggling of tobacco products into Ireland. Again, there appears the ‘dissonance’. Because the Customs has seized X amount of stuff, then people will not find ways to circumvent the Customs. Critically, however, is that she ‘lost the plot’. She claimed that there was little ‘smuggling’, and yet claimed that the Customs were confiscating ‘billions’.
It is very late, and so I can only give the bare bones of the idea – and I am tired.
Given a War, like WW2, Nations were faced with ‘reality’ – fight or be enslaved. Had the Nazis in WW2, who just happened to be German, defeated the armies of France, Britain, etc in Europe, the USA would never have become involved. The USA became involved for specific political reasons. Those reasons were very complex, and it is probable that no one now would understand. What I am saying does not judge the value of who won the war.
What I am saying is that, in wartime, ‘Reality’ (bombs and guns) is paramount. Little else matters. For some reason that I do not understand, in peacetime, a sort of ‘war’ is induced. This ‘war’ displays itself in REGULATIONS. It is a war between ‘Business’ and ‘Government’. But it is not a war between ‘Business’ and ‘The People’ – it is between Commerce and those who wish to control and benefit from commerce without contributing. AKA Leaches.
It seems to be a matter of fact that ‘Theory’ is in the ascendant. Thus, the tiny possibility of infection from some virus (like ebola) which might kill you, becomes paramount in your consciousness. Thus, ‘Reality’ becomes cloudy.
ASH ET AL have been substituting ‘theory’ for ‘reality’ for decades. I can understand why the MSM goes along with the ‘theoretical’ scares (good for sales of newspapers), but I cannot understand the failure of politicians to see the difference between real life and theory.
I am at a bit of a loss to think of anything to blather about tonight, so I’ll spend a little time on ‘associated topics’.
I mentioned the WordPress Problem a week or two ago. What was happening was that WordPress was slow loading and loading to the wrong ‘page’. It ought to load the log-in window first, and quickly, then it should load ‘Comments’ and quickly. What was happening was that everything was very slow and, after the log-in, it was going to a list of blog WordPress ‘functions’, such as ‘All Posts’, ‘Themes’, etc, not all of them specific to this site. The only way that I could get into the site was via ‘All Posts’. Even that did not always work.
I seem to have solved the problem. There was a recommendation, which was to ‘clear THE WHOLE browsing history’, although clearing THE WHOLE was only hinted at. I don’t really understand what I’m doing, but I did delete THE WHOLE, apart from passwords and autofill. Also, there were a couple of downloads which were ‘search engine related’. I got rid of them also.
Anyway, when I had done that, and clicked on the BSC link, everything was back to normal – straight to log-in, straight to comments, straight to ‘new post’ when I clicked it. (This one) Of course, next time I do it, it might be cocked up again. Oh… Forgot to say that I changed the password some days ago without effect.
Damn! I’ve just opened a new tab and clicked the BSC favourite and – shit – crap again.
Must try harder. I’ll have to pester the WordPress admin, and pester them I shall – greatly.
Re the ‘Curing Box’. Readers might remember that I was having problems when I simply hung leaves in the box in that the lowest parts of the leaves dried out far too quickly and dried out green. Because of that, those green parts had had no chance to ‘cure’. To correct the problem, I rolled up the leaves in towels. Here are a couple of pics as a reminder:
That is the box. I was going to put hinges on the flap (at the bottom front) and the lid (self-evident). I’ve decided not to – hinges would be more trouble than they are worth – it is simple enough just to move the flap and the lid out of the way.
There are the rolled up towels containing the leaves hanging inside the box.
The whole thing is powered by a crock pot (slow cooker) placed at the bottom of the box. The heat level is controlled by a thermostat. Further, since then, I have lined the interior with kitchen foil and partially insulated the outside with polystyrene sheets. It is all very ‘Heath Robinson’.
The ‘towelling method’, allied with the ability to maintain a constant 35ºC, has yellowed the leaves nicely (apart from a few stubborn bits) over the last two days.
JB from Ireland found a really good, short pdf article on curing tobacco. It is ‘authoritative, being a result of the investigations of an agronomist, but is simple and clear. Here it is:
What I particularly liked about it is this. It says:
The leaves need to be ‘alive’ for the starches to ferment into ‘reducing’ sugars. The fermentation must be done at a low but warm temperature (around 35C), otherwise, the sugars, being ‘reducing’ sugars, will decompose into carbon dioxide and water. The leaves will be ‘cured’ when they have become yellow. After that, the leaves need to be ‘killed’ by increasing the temperature to around 55C for as long as it takes, generally, a couple of days. Nice and simple, don’t you think?
I didn’t think that it would be possible to get a temp of 55C using the crock pot on a low setting, but it is possible.
All this experimentation is fascinating. Today, I have tried the kitchen oven, but it is very hard to control the temperature and avoid overheating. I have tried the propagator, but it is not hot enough. The curing box seems to be working well.
Growing the plants this year has been a bit weird. Some plants are gorgeous, but others are not very pretty. Here are a couple of pics:
That is Plot 1. The white thing is a 30 cm (1 foot) ruler. You can see that there are some jolly big leaves on those plants. But you can also see that there are small plants in the foreground and on the left. Those were plants which I put in later because of slug predation. There is still September and October for them to grow.
That is Plot 2. Not so good, but it is North facing. It does not get much sunshine since it is overshadowed by next door’s bushes and trees. Note how the development of the plants gets worse on the right. Those plants are nearest the fence and most overshadowed. But there is time yet, as I said. All I’m interested in is getting the best harvest that I can this year. I have plans to extend Plot 1 over the winter and, possibly, abandon Plot 2. What is the point of having a decent-sized garden and having most of it just grass?
I wish I had thought of growing tobacco plants twenty years ago.
I have been vaguely watching BBC News for a while as I deal with the baccy leaves (at around 3 am). There was a panel discussion about the Middle East.
I was watching only vaguely (not actually listening much – more interested in the leaves), but it struck me that the people talking and discussing what was happening were not the people who can make decisions.
I fail to see the significance of these ‘blatherers’. Why do these discussions not take place, on TV, among those who can actually make the decisions? I’m not talking about backbench MPs. I’m talking about Ministers and Government Departments, such as the Defence Dept (or rather, the Attack Dept). What is the point of journalists discussing what needs to be done about ‘Islamic State’? They might as well shut the f*ck up for all the difference that their discussions make.
It seems somehow as though the BBC goes out of its way to report ‘non-events’. These events might seem to be apposite, such as well-rehearsed videos of a guy rushing to an ambulance, weeping and shouting, carrying a comatose child, but they are not. The reason is that they are just pictures of ugly events, and not ‘decision making’ processes. I mean, even though these videos are set up, in a war of the nature of Hamas V Israel, such morbidity and mortality can be expected. Thus, they are not THE MAIN news. What is the MAIN news is that there seems to be no solution to the Middle East Conflagration. One might imagine a discussion on TV between Ministers and, say, the Defence Dept about what to do about the ‘Middle East Conflagration’.
What is the use of listening to journalists blathering about what may, might, possibly?
Is this not also true, more or less, about discussions on TV about The Enjoyment of Tobacco? When have Health Ministers ever appeared on TV discussions about it? I discount programmes such as ‘Question Time’ because they are not serious. They are emotional, propagandised and trivial.
Would it not be amusing and enlightening if the last three ‘Health Ministers’, Milton MP, Subry MP and the current one, Allison MP, were forced to appear on TV, in a discussion with ‘Free Trade’ experts about Plain Packaging? What is the international treaty which forbids the pirating of trade marks? It has been said that ‘HEALTH’ overrides trade marks, but there is a huge ‘non-sequitur’ in that statement, which is PP implies that writing and colours on cig packets, in themselves, make people ill.
There lies the rub. It may be that cigs make people ill, but the colours and writing on the packets cannot possibly be the cause.
So here is the weirdest thing. Something that cannot possibly be ‘the cause’ of ill-health is banned, while the actual cause (if it is true) is not banned. That is why I suggest that actual politicians and Minsters should be quizzed on TV. Decisions should not be made on the basis of YouGov quack surveys.
I have had several YouGov surveys over the last several days. Some of them seem to have become advertising rather than surveys. For example, Costa Coffee machines crop up again and again. Do you have one, do you like it, do you intend to get one? Again and again, I have seen such suggestive ‘surveys’.
They are not surveys; they are adverts, pretending to be surveys. ASH ET AL used to do it all the time, with their ‘surveys’. By asking the leading questions, they put ideas into the minds of people who do YouGov surveys. These people are different from the general population, and are ripe for advertising via survey. Costa Coffee machines appear again and again and again.
When a Government Minister stands up in the Commons and says that the Government is ‘minded to’, she must explain what ‘minded to’ means. To me, that phrase means ‘has decided NOT to’. If it were otherwise, she would have said, “Will do”.
“I am minded to redecorate the whole house, Darling”. “Jolly good. When will you start?” “Erm…. Erm….. GIVE ME A CHANCE, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE!” I trust that readers will see the ‘cognitive dissonance’.
I think that THE PEOPLE are becoming sick to death of Government uselessness. They have ceased to believe a word that politicians say, if only because they see, intuitively, that politicians know bugger all about the matters upon which they decide. It is hard to think if a worse system of Government.
I’m just thinking aloud here, but I have noticed that quite a few of my ‘favourites’ have not posted anything for some time. I am wondering why. Have they been ground down, or is it because TC has ground to a halt? Certainly, TC is making a lot of noise about the plain packaging stuff, but if they succeed, PP will not directly hurt PETS (People who Enjoy Tobacco). Nor will it hurt tobacco companies since the existing brands will continue with their loyal following. Thus, companies like Philip Morris will, in effect, have a monopoly. People who might wish to change brands for whatever reason will have little option but to try lots of different brands in order to choose one.
I know that that has been true for a long time, ever since advertising was banned, and probably before that, in view of the individuality of taste, but there will be a huge difference with PP, which is that it will be awfully hard to know what brands exist since they will all look the same. Apart from choosing according to the nastiness of the gory picture on the packet, how might a person begin? The obvious way is to go by the price. “How much is THAT packet?” “£7.50″. “And how much is THAT one?” £7.30″ “OK, I’ll try that one” Thus, premium brands will lose sales.
Funnily enough, in the first instance, that might be good for new brands. “How much is that packet?” “£6.90, but it only has 19 cigs in it” Quick calculation: difference from £7.30 packet is 40p. Cost per cig of 20 pack = about 36p; cost per cig of 19 pack, about 36p. No difference. Hip-dip-Dash. So back to price. But Philip Morris will soon cotton on and reduce their prices to ‘the monopolistic norm’. Bang goes any thought of ‘quality’. While the Zealots are blathering about nicotine content, carbon monoxide, menthol and e-cigs, PM will be using expanded tobacco, which weighs less and burns down more quickly. Easy-peasy profits. NO ONE WILL KNOW WHAT IS IN THE CIGARETTES. We will see a monopoly of cheap and nasty cigarettes. (When I say ‘cheap’, I mean pre-tax: when I say ‘nasty’, I mean variable quality tobacco, but not poisonous)
But, essentially, PP will not reduce smoking prevalence, either among adults or ‘children’. For consumers, including ‘children’, nothing will change.
So, at the moment, for us PETS, there is nothing much happening. There are far away countries, that we know little about, like Australia and the USA, who are banning smoking in the open air in parks, on beaches and in ‘al fresco’ areas of pubs. So what? The sillier their bans become, the sillier the Zealots will be seen to be, and the sooner they will start to be ridiculed. There is not much happening, or, such that is happening, is on no importance to PETS.
It is easy to see why it is that some blogs have ‘rested’.
But that attitude is wrong.
It is important to keep on questioning the assumptions. For example, the fact that there is a thirty year delay between a person starting to enjoy tobacco and that person getting lung cancer, does NOT mean that smoking causes LC after 30 years of smoking as a result of smoking. Is there any ‘disease’ in the world which takes 30 years to accumulate? No! The 30 years stuff is just another assumption, based upon the statistics of the Doctors Study. There is no verification. It is a rationalisation. “Malaria is very prevalent in people who live near swamps, therefore swamps cause malaria, but these people do not get malaria straight away. They get this disease after 30 year have elapsed. We know this because we have counted the years between a person living near a swamp and getting malaria. Most still live near swamps, and they are the ones who most commonly get malaria, but some have moved away, and they get less malaria. The longer that you live away from swamps, the more likely it is that you will not get malaria”
But what really causes malaria? It is a parasite which mosquitoes carry. What causes lung cancer ……?
Do not accept the preconceptions as true. They may or may not be. Remember always that the Zealots in the Medical Profession control what studies should be undertaken. For example, what studies were undertaken in the past concerning LC in Veterans of WW1 and WW2 as compared with non-combatants?
Some interesting studies have been conducted. For example, a person named Kitty Little conducted a study in South Africa. It found that smokers in cities which were windy, even though they had lots of industry and motor traffic, had a lot less LC than smokers in cities which tended to have frequent still air conditions (aka, smogs). She also showed that people who lived in the ‘interior’ (far away from smoky, smoggy cities), rarely suffered LC, even though they smoked a lot. Another study showed clearly that people who live at the top of high-rise buildings have less heart problems than those who live on the lowest floors. Another study in the USA showed that people who are over 90 years of age did not have a particularly healthy lifestyle – some smoked, some didn’t; some drank, some didn’t. And all the variations that one might imagine. And there has been the Bofetta Study, on behalf of the WHO – a huge study which could not find any link between heart problems (I think) and SHS. And there was the Enstrom and Kabat study about the incidence of LC in spouses of smokers, which showed no effect, even after 30 0r 40 years of spousal smoking. The WHO did its best to hide the Bofetta Study, but was found out by a newspaper.
And then we have the McTear Case (see sidebar). New readers should read my Summary of the Case. It ought to have been simple for The Medical Profession to ‘prove’, for the purpose of a civil case (meaning ‘on the balance of probabilities’ rather than the criminal case of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’), but they failed even to produce their evidence that smoking causes LC. Note that – they failed even to produce their evidence. The Judge complained about the lack of evidence, and kicked the idea into touch. The Medical Profession failed abysmally. The judge found against the Medical Profession on every count.
It is important to note that the McTear Case was not simply an action by a person named McTear against Imperial Tobacco. It was a ‘test case’. Originally, ASH asked for volunteers, and it chose Mr McTear as its best option. But ASH is just the propaganda arm of the Royal College of Physicians, aka, the Medical Profession (along with the BMA). McTear was the useful tool, ASH was the vehicle used to select the participants, lawyers and such, but, behind it all was the RCP and the Medical Profession in general. Except that ‘The Medical Profession’ is represented by Zealots like non-medical people such as Glantz, Chapman and others. Further, even further back, were the Zealots who have gained control of the NHS.
We must never give in. There has never been any positive proof whatsoever that smoking causes LC or any other disease. Even more, the idea that SHS causes any problems at all is a mirage, apart from people who should never venture outside without wearing a mask. There may well be such people, and they may subject to asthma attacks as a result of seeing some activity of which they are afraid.
Contest everything. The Doctors Study is not some sort of gospel. We do not know that it was not ‘fixed’, even in minor ways. Little attempt was made to account for war-time experiences, and little attempt was made to note geographical differences. Thus, despite the fact that 34,000 male doctors took part in the study, it suffers from the usual uncertainties – bias, false reporting, lack of consideration of other factors, failure to account for the delayed effect, lack of clarity that it was only very old doctors who died in the main, and uncertainty about the real ’cause of death’.
Because of the uncertainties, we must question everything, over and over again. There are so many charlatans who have latched on to anti-smoking to make a lot of bucks that the whole ‘profession’ has become hopelessly corrupt. Hopelessly corrupt.
It needs only one Nation to stand up and shout for the whole edifice to collapse. But that Nation must SHOUT, otherwise it will be ignored. Not only ignored, but undermined and its economy damaged (World Bank influence). SHOUTING is important. But one cannot shout if no one can hear because the MSM is also corrupt. For example, the MSM, especially the BBC, keep publishing obviously staged ‘propaganda’ for ‘the rebels’.
When in doubt, and when the News has nothing to say, ask who “owns” ASH, and who pays for ASH. Ask why the Lotto gave £500,000 to ASH.
There are things that I am not sure about, and which need to be explored. For example, can I instruct my MP to ask a question, addressed to a Minister, in Parliament? The question need not be actually voiced in the chamber. It might be a written question. For example (and this is silly, I suppose), one might ask how much skinny people cost the NHS! How many plump people become skinny when they become old. How many skinny people die ‘prematurely’.
It is obvious that the Health Dept will attract charlatans since it is a massive monopoly, as is the WHO etc. We need a Churchill-type person to sort everything out. Thus, the many sites which have become silent might revive themselves because they have something to cheer about.