Others have commented extensively, eg Dick Puddlecote . For those not familiar, the TC magazine has been crying about bloggers criticising their propaganda studies in blog posts and on Twitter and such without permission. They claim that the ‘proper’ place to publish such criticism is in their own magazine using their ‘Rapid Response’ system.
I was not going to bother commenting on this matter because the article has been thoroughly ripped apart by everyone else, but I decided to put in my two pen’orth just for fun.
Ask yourself:”Whom is the TC magazine for?” I should imagine that it is a freebie, circulated around ‘stop smoking service’ centres. I cannot see anyone actually paying for it. In other words, something else that smokers and taxpayers pay for.
So the target audience is THE FAITHFUL. So the editors of the magazine are telling THE FAITHFUL not to pay any attention to the infidels who pull TC’s fake studies apart, but to stay faithful and believe. And so you get statements like this:
Recent comments posted on some personal blogs impugn the objectivity of Tobacco Control and its reviewers, questioning our motives and the veracity of peer review.
In other words, “Do not believe those infidels. We are honest and true, even though we might make the occasional mistake”
But read that sentence again. Note the juxtaposing of ‘motives’ and ‘veracity of peer review’. ‘Public Health’ is very fond, very fond indeed of juxtaposing different things as though they were the same thing. EG, “overweight or obese”. ‘Motives’ and ‘veracity of peer reviews’ are totally different things.
There was a critique which I read (I wish I could remember where, but it appeared as a link, and I cannot remember) which hit the nail. It queried a study which said that experiments had shown that flavours in ecigs, and not the PG or VG, produced massive quantities of aldehydes. The researchers deduced that because ‘plain’ liquid did not produce such quantities, it was the flavourings which did. Farsellinos and Hayek (forgive misspellings – it is late) asked for details of the liquids used so that they could attempt to reproduce the results, but the researchers either could not or would not tell them. Now, even the most scientifically innocent amongst us would tend to realise instinctively that not all flavours are the same; that some flavours might produce weird results, and that it is important to know which flavours were the ones which produced the massive quantities of aldehydes. And, of course, the identity of the liquid would be massively important. But no. In their responses to requests for the information, the researchers suggested that they did not know precisely what liquids they used! Perhaps they were afraid of being sued by the producers of the liquid, especially if the producers had already done copious experiments which showed that nothing of the sort could happen – in normal circumstances.
But horrible tastes could happen in abnormal circumstances, such as what is called ‘dry puff’. I assume that means when an ecig heater is activated when little or no liquid is present. That is quite possible and not at all unlikely to happen from time to time. But the result would be a really nasty taste, so no one, unless he was incredibly stupid, would continue puffing. But that raises another point. Precisely how dangerous to health are those massive quantities of aldehydes? Which brings us to another TC trick – exaggeration of effects.
What really, really amazes me is that politicians, who are, by definition, the best people in the land to govern, are so gullible. One would have to be very cynical to say that they just do not care.
But perhaps the worm is turning.
Who voted for Brexit? Who voted for Trump? It was not the arseholes in tobacco control for sure. It was ‘the lower classes’ – the smokers and drinkers.
I thought it was comical when tobacco control was shrieking a few days ago that the Government had not published the new ‘tobacco control strategy’. Could it be possible that, unlike Chan from the WHO, our Government has more important things to deal with?
And there is the solution to TC’s exaggeration of its own importance – the NHS is in crisis, the UK’s relationship with the USA is mega-important, Brexit really, really matters. How important is the risk of an individual dying before another individual? In fact, it would be wonderful for the NHS if millions of old-age pensioners popped their clogs tomorrow -smokers or not. In fact, according to TC, most of those aged OAPs would have been non-smokers since most smokers would already have died.
What is clear to me is that TC is in retreat. Maybe its magazine is being binned unread and no one is interested in anything it says. After all, who could be permanently interested in propaganda?
I remember some years ago taking part in a little competition organised by TC. I forget the detail, but, essentially, it asked for useful slogans. I offered (words to the effect): “Tobacco profits leave the country, but the harm remains”. It was better phrased, but that was the essential. I WON!
Needless to say, I just had to tell them that my proposition was ‘fake news’. I wrote and said that my ‘proposition’ was crap; that the ‘profits’ from commercial and industrial activity were distributed world-wide depending upon who owned the shares in tobacco companies. Whereupon I received an ‘ad hom’ nasty response to the effect that I was a sort of ‘plant’, to which I replied that, unlike you Ms Whoever, I do not get paid for my endeavours.
Tobacco Control is a joke. It can only be that it has emanated from some aboriginal worship (and I do not mean Australian Abos). I mean some sort of belief that tobacco has metaphysical properties. One of those properties might be the wish to just carry on.
In our lives, when we are young, we wish to be active and demanding. When we get old, we relax and take things as they are. “What is, is”. But even old farts can rebel. For example, there are benefits which I can claim because of my wife’s illness (MS). There are some which I do not need, but I claim them. Why? Because both of us smoke, and so we contribute MORE THAN non-smokers. We smokers subsidise non-smokers.
Tobacco duties, alcohol duties, petrol duties and all the rest are VICIOUS, REGRESSIVE TAXES WHICH HIT THE POOREST PEOPLE HARDEST.
The Tory Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party have been persecuting me, a smoker, for decades and decades. In the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, tobacco duties did not matter because they were only a small part of the price. Now they are 75% or more of the price.
What I like is that more and more people are recognising that ‘Duties’ are terribly unfair to those who pay the duty, and that those who do not buy the stuff which attracts Duty are being subsidised by those who do. There is no moral reason that smokers should be tormented by duties.
DUTIES ARE FRAUD!
I personally believe that, towards the end of WW2, there was no doubt that Germany would be defeated. It is hard to know when that realisation occurred. It might have been at the moment when the USA joined in. But the USA, at that time, was not nearly as powerful as it subsequently became. We have to go back to WW1 to understand. The USA came into WW1 in 1917 and changed the balance, which defeated Germany. Suppose that Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour? Would the USA have joined in WW2?
We do not know. But we tend to think that the USA had an all-powerful navy and an all-powerful army, and an all-powerful air-force. It did not. Those imaginings are the product of films and similar propaganda. Japan was strong and the USA was weak – organisationally. But it was still incredibly stupid for Japan to attack the USA. The attack on Pearl Harbour provoked the USA to assemble its wealth of natural resources. Japan was a bit like the UK – a comparatively small area with limited resources. Once the USA organised, there was no doubt who would win. It was about space and resources. The only way that Japan could win was by a continuous war on the USA, and an eventual invasion.
Films about USA heroics have obscured reality. Does any reader remember going to the flicks and watching the heroic American cavalry decimating heroic Red Indians?
What is horrible is the idea that people actually believed the propaganda that Red Indians were evil. Films showed good Americans in their forts, fearing the onslaught of Red Indians. The onslaught happened, but, ALLELUIA!, The Cavalry appeared over the horizon and slaughtered the Red Indians.
My point is that IT IS NOT VERY LONG AGO that such blatant propaganda was accepted as truth.
In the same way, the EU has been promoted as THE TRUTH. It is collapsing and is therefore not THE TRUTH.
But the question of who engaged in the trickery, and why, has not been investigated.
Who will fund a Study into the workings of the EU? Who will investigate the corruption?
There are consequences to the UK escape. It might be that the corruption will be revealed. But I doubt it because we have not elected a Trump.
So the EU will continue, in it morass of corruption, until the UK, France, Spain, etc defund it. The EU apparatus can only continue as long as it has money.
But why has it taken so long discover the mess? Why have the EU bosses been allowed to build magnificent buildings? Who paid for those buildings and to whom do they belong?
It really is incredible that people like PM Blair tossed away Great Britain’s independence with such secrecy and corruption.
It really is incomprehensible.
It is not an awful long time ago that MPs in Parliament were not paid. They received generous expenses, but no actual salary. They were expected to be either earning a living or have independent means. Parliament as such met fairly irregularly and in the evenings. A person standing for election as an MP was expected to accept that he was doing a ‘public service’, and that the reward was the satisfaction of ‘doing good’.
The point is that MPs were not expected to actually ‘GOVERN’. They existed to subject ‘Government’ to scrutiny.
So who actually Governed?
There is a morass of uncertainty. As we have seen in the USA, some judge in a lower court has said that President Trump’s block on travellers from seven countries to the USA is illegal. Here in the UK, a judge has said that the current Government cannot abrogate a Treaty without Parliamentary approval, even though the current Government can make Treaties without Parliamentary approval. Gordon Brown did exactly that when he signed the UK up to the Lisbon Treaty, and the Foreign Office did the same thing when it signed the UK up to the FCTC. Soubry MP signed the UK up to the EU tobacco product directive without even knowing what was in it.
It is easy to talk about ‘powers behind the throne’, but in the present situation, there is no throne.
There is chaos.
When there was a King, there was permanence, and the fact that he ‘arose’ by birth rather than election, despite the system’s failings, meant that there was only one source of authority, and that it was permanent. Well, it was permanent until the King was beheaded or overthrown or the Kingdom was invaded.
Not for a minute am I saying that we need to revert to a King. I am saying that the existence of the ‘Deep State’ must be acknowledged. In theory, the key ruling body in the UK is The Cabinet, and not the Prime Minister alone. But there is a problem – the Cabinet is a group of individuals who are not especially competent. They may be clever and intelligent, and even wise, but they are generally ignorant about what they have to decide upon.
So they have to take advice. And that is where the ‘Deep State’ comes in. Who recommends what ‘experts’ should be consulted? The ‘Deep State’ comprises of the those who recommend ‘the experts’, and not ‘the experts’ themselves.
And that is how we came to have the general smoking ban, and the swingeing penalties on any publican who dared NOT TO physically attack a person who lit up in his pub. I experienced it myself. When the ‘Sisters’ (?) gave up the pub, on their last night, I lit up. I was assailed by them physically to snatch the cig from my mouth. But I only lit up because I was about to leave anyway. Another incident occurred when an Australian took over the pub. We all got along very well, except that there was an underlying current of bossiness. One night, I lit a cig and they physically threw me out of the pub and banned me. A couple of months later, immediately after New Year, they shot off back to Australia leaving all the debts behind them. Which ‘offence’ was worse?
It is no use going on and on and on, decade after decade, with the ‘Deep State’ in control. What we should notice is that the ‘Deep State’ is unaccountable. It can bugger things up with impunity. It can persecute smokers with impunity. It can persecute drinkers with impunity, and fatties. And it can destroy our fishing fleet and our coal industry.
What is the answer? The answer is that the ‘Deep State’ must be exposed to the light of day. The Heads of Departments in the Civil Service must be named and made accountable. It is no longer acceptable that those ‘powers behind the throne’ should be anonymous.
In the not too distant future, there will be no activity which is not criminal unless THE LAW says that it is not. Hate speech is a case in point. A person who feels that some action or word is threatening, is right until proven otherwise. So a person who fells insulted could report that event to the police and the police would be obliged to investigate. Think of the police time and effort, and the cost, of all those investigations. More and more ordinary activities are being criminalised. Assembling in a group can be a crime if a policeperson says that it is. What is the phrase? “Civil nuisance” or something?
Just recently, the powers-that- be rushed a new law/regulation through Parliament, hidden in a Finance Act, that importing tobacco leaf, a substance freely traded as an agricultural product throughout Europe, is a crime if you do not have a permit. The excuse was that such imports were a ‘controlled activity’. But how can such imports be ‘controlled activities’ and yet still be freely traded? It is impossible since needing a permit automatically stops freedom to trade. You can tell that it was rushed through because it is so full of holes. For example, suppose that someone sent me some leaf as a present or a free sample? Who then would be doing the importing? The exporter would also have to be the importer, unless the aircraft or ship which carried the ‘goods’ was the importer. Last year, I found some decorative nicotiana plants in my local garden centre and bought a few. They looked very pretty in my outdoor plant pots on the drive. Very pretty. When they died, I chucked them in the green bin. It is illegal, so they say, to transport such waste, so will the local authority be charged with a crime if they are found out carrying such waste to the recycling tip? Why not, if they do not have a permit?
But the real nonsense is in the reason given for the law/regulation, which is that there is a risk that a person might be avoiding duty. Obviously, just an excuse concocted by TobCon , which now seems to have control over the Border Force, as well as the Health Dept, Local Authorities, hospitals, and so to be, the streets. When will Government, at all levels, realise that it is being used by anti-British elements of the UN and the WHO? At least Trump seems to have realised that fact as regards anti-American activities. Note, anti-American and not un-American.
I have been reading quite a lot about economics recently. Economists say that free trade, in the sense that goods produced more cheaply elsewhere, for whatever reason, and imported, make us all better off. I thoroughly understand that. For example, our climate in Britain is not good for the growing of oranges, although it can be done. Better, therefore, to import oranges from those countries where they grow very well. Better to import oranges which can be sold to be public for £1 per kilo than protect home-grown oranges which sell at a price of £5 per kilo. But that is only part of the story. If people are earning good wages, they might not be bothered about paying £5 per kilo for oranges, but if the have no earnings, how could they afford the £1 per kilo?
In other words, there always has to be a balance. I was watching a documentary about the EU earlier on. In the South of Italy, there used to be a Fiat factory. Fiat (surely synonymous with Italy?) moved the factory to Eastern Europe. Thousands lost their jobs and the factory stands empty and derelict. Could anything be worse? Well, yes, it could. It could be made worse if the EU banned the South of Italy from making cars by introducing a law/regulation which criminalised such activity.Oh, they would not be so obvious, as the ‘controlled activity’ description of free trade in leaf has shown. Some other form of words would be used.
In the Trump press conference, he insisted that a new pipeline must be built with American steel. Purists would say that he should insist that the steel used should be the cheapest available (provided that the quality was right), but I have my doubts. If the American steel industry was fully occupied, then out-sourcing would make sense. And what about the use of semi-slave labour in the countries producing cheap steel? The EU Elite have grandiose idea about ‘equality’ which is fine in theory, but, in practice, produces 50% unemployment among youths in Spain and Greece.
What seems to me to be the case, if I may say so in my ignorance, is that money is not everything. Living in a pleasantly warm country, where you do not need central heating, and hardly ever need to wear an overcoat, has massive benefits. It would be even more wonderful if there were not Tyrants forbidding you from growing your own tobacco plants to make cigs and growing your own grapevines to make your own wine. Even better, would be a situation where some people grew lots of tobacco plants and lots of vines, and made products even better than you could yourself. Would that not be nice? Well, it would be, provided that Government left you alone.
People make noises about ‘small’ government, but no one actually does anything. What happened to Cameron’s ‘bonfire of the quangos?’ I suppose that some anonymous Civil Servant, in true “Yes, Minister” style, said, “Well, certainly, Prime Minister, but the chaos could seriously affect your electability. After all, 70% of the people agree with tobacco control”. Oh, wait a minute. There is no ‘tobacco control’ quango. That, in itself, should have raised suspicions. There is a Framework Convention but no quango in the UK.
It cannot go on. It must stop and be reversed. Is Nigel Farage the Leader that this country needs? It is a pity that we have this antiquated system in which the Leader ’emerges’. I still cannot get an answer, in my mind, to the question of ‘where did Cameron come from?’ He seemed to have ’emerged’. Where did he come from? He emerged from Eton, had a job somewhere for a while, became a Tory researcher, got elected as an MP, and then, suddenly became PM. The fact is that he was manufactured. What did he ever do as PM? Bugger all. Oh, he allowed plain packaging and various other persecutions like hate crime and the virtual exhumation of celebs to vilify them, and the prosecution of old soldiers for putative ‘crimes’ when they did their duty, oh and the general furthering of the persecution of smokers – and any other target which his ‘Elite Masters’ told him to.
I don’t think that Industry is as selfish as is made out. Yes, the objective of industry is to make profits. How could it be otherwise? For some reason, which might be justified, we in the UK exempt Health from that equation. As a result, Health costs are constantly under attack.
Is there any way that Health could be made profitable to the Nation? A very interesting question. I’m not sure if it ever actually happened, but I remember reading about a proposal that anyone booking an appointment with a doctor in OZ would be required to pay a small fee. I suppose that children could be exempted, but the requirement would be general otherwise. The fee might be £5. I honestly do not see a problem with that, especially if the prescription fee was dropped. That is, if a person was prepared to pay the fee of £5 to see the doctor, then the consequent costs, if any, would be zero. You would think that a person worried enough to want to visit his doctor would be very relieved to know that there was nothing wrong with him, and that he did not need medicine. I certainly would.
Ah, you might say, but the poorest people would defer visiting the doctor until it was too late. Maybe, but, again, you would exempt people who were on benefits.
The Criminalisation of Society goes hand in hand with ANY increase in the size of the State. The EU itself causes masses of criminalisation. Moving leaves around? Criminal. Allowing terrorists in? Virtuous.
I have been wondering what the UK could do with its fair share of EU buildings. The UK is not committed to ongoing projects since its withdrawal automatically terminates those projects, unless ‘the settlement’ agrees otherwise. Get the idea? Article 50 is irrelevant. We have decided to leave the EU, period. Any negotiations are NOT about ‘the terms’ of leaving. There are no such ‘terms’. They negotiations are about ‘settlements’. What ought to play a huge part is the protection afforded to the EU over the decades by our armed forces. Remember that, immediately after WW2, France, Germany, Italy had almost no armed forces. Despite the sabre rattling, nor did the Soviet Union. All those countries, including Great Britain, were exhausted. Apart from the USA, which profited magnificently from that conflict.
So the EU is crippled. It does not matter what Juncker and co say. A worthy dream of gradual cultural and economic integration has been ruined by the greediness of The Elite.
So what must be done? It is obvious. That Elite must be banished and prosecuted where possible. There must be no Elite.
I think that our UK democracy has to change also. I base that thought upon the idea that around 100 MPs of the major party become Ministers of one sort or another. We have seen how some of these people are totally unequipped either with experience or intellect to deal with their briefs. For example, Milton MP believed that the UK had to obey the FCTC bosses, and Soubry MP thought that ecigs had been removed from the EU TPD. But the real horror of those situations was that IT DID NOT MATTER WHAT THEY THOUGHT. They were powerless.
So when the UK has agreed with other countries in the EU (not the likes of Juncker) what the settlement of assets etc might be, there might possibly be a totally new agreement between those countries and the UK.
It is a total mess, but only because successive UK governments have been careless. Extremely careless. It comes down to this. You cannot allow junior ministers, who know bugger all, to commit the UK.
Nor can you allow Special Interest Groups, like ASH, to dictate to the Border Force what is important. ‘Fanatical Islamist Suicide Bombers’ are important, and not importers of dried leaves.
If there is to be truly international ‘free trade’, despite what I said earlier about ‘protection’, then there should be no such thing as ‘Duties’. The whole concept of ‘duties’ is unutterably silly. If a State wants to decrease the competitiveness of its industries in the world, the easiest way is to increase those industry’s costs. It is totally INCOMPREHENSIBLE that we still have petrol duties. It really is incomprehensible.
What activities can really be described as criminal? There are lots and lots, from murder to theft to cruelty. Lots and lots. But we could do without artificial criminalities, like ‘controlled activities’.
Disobedience is the only way. But the problem with disobedience is that it acknowledges that there is something to to be disobedient to. Perhaps there is another way. For example, import a package of leaf of only 500 grams. Who cares? And if and when Border Force intercept such an import, ask why the allowed all the previous similar imports through? It is only questions like that which bring the stupidity of ‘permits’ to the fore.
I cannot understand why Government does not hate special interest groups. Surely, those groups must make Government harder. They demand that special attention should be given to their project.
The ‘Hospitality Trade’ needs a lift, including pubs, clubs and restaurants. What could be better than a softening of the smoking ban? What is important is that such places should have ‘smoking areas’ and not ‘non-smoking areas’. The probability is that the ‘smoking areas’ would be more popular than the non-smoking areas. The challenge for pubs would be to re-arrange their bars so that employees were ‘protected’ from SHS.
Erm. Such SHS danger does not exist. The ban is not based upon science, but only upon force of law.
We must understand that ONLY law/regulation matters. Opinions and Studies are irrelevant. But such laws/regulations are corrupt and always have been. Why? Because they SINGLE OUT a law-abiding group and criminalise them.
It is beyond my comprehension how this can have happened, even though it has been ‘salami’ sliced.
If you think of smokers, it can only be that politicians, especially those involved with the UN and the FCTC, have decided that such smokers are vermin. That is the only way to understand it. There is no better understanding than that smokers must be ‘exiled to the outdoors’.
Just suppose, for a second, that the Black Death, the Bubonic Plague, which swept through Europe in the 1600s, could have been curtailed if not stopped completely. Suppose that a simple, widely available substance, which could be drunk, stopped the infection or cured it. You would think that ‘the authorities’ would have spread the word as rapidly as humanly possible at the time. We know that, despite the lack of telephones etc, word could be spread very rapidly via town criers and pulpits. The country was alerted to the Spanish invasion by bonfires.
The word can be spread these days in seconds.
The Australian Government decided that it was going to be the leader in the league table of reducing tobacco smoking prevalence. Or rather, the TC Tyrants decided so. The Oz Government played no real part in the decisions. TC Tyrant ‘academics’ were in control and Oz politicians fell dutifully behind them.
Just recently, Oz has twisted itself into knots. It really is incomprehensible.
UNSAFE, dangerous, carcinogenic, killers of bystanders, aka cigarettes, are applauded by ‘luxury’ taxation. SAFE, harmless, detoxified ecigs containing minute quantities of nicotine are vilified and banned. Substitution is discouraged.
If such ineptitude among politicians in OZ is NORMAL, how can those people be considered to be fit to rule? It makes no sense. But is it not becoming clearer and clearer that the PEOPLE are learning? Frankly, I think that it has taken far longer for the PEOPLE to learn than it should have. I think that is because the PEOPLE trusted the people that they elected as their representatives. How would they know that a person standing as Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, or whatever, was in fact a ‘tobacco control fanatic’?
So I can point readers to this critique of the Tyrant’s preliminary decision to continue the ban on nicotine containing ecig liquids:
It is all very comical, but it indicates a very important point, which is political ineptitude. Rather than listen to its own People, Oz is listening to International Tyrants in the WHO.
For how long can the Tyrants hold sway? I do not know, but I DO know that only our elected representatives can stop it.
I do not know how ecig machines became known as ‘pens’. I can only guess that they look a little like fountain pens of old. But those examples are rather antiquated, aren’t they? Many serious vapers use machines which do not resemble ‘pens’ at all.
It is a matter of visualisation. The word ‘stick’ would have the same visualisation in the sense that a ‘stick’ is a narrow, circular length of a branch of a tree or shrub. A ‘pen’ has the same visualisation.
It surprises me that vapers have not found new words to describe their equipment. (Note straight away that the word ‘vaper’ is a new word, as is ‘vaping’) How can they invent the words ‘vaper, vaping’ but fail to give the machine a sensible name? I think that almost everyone would concede that the phrase ‘electronic cigarette’ was a terrible, terrible error.
TobCon changes the meaning of words over and over again, and it succeeds in doing so by constant repetition. So why do not vapers arrive at their own word for the ‘machine’? It is critically important extract the machine from regulation other than normal requirements for safety of electrical apparatus. It is no big deal. Essentially, ‘vape pens’ are not much different from flash-lights. A battery heats a filament.
But note that I had no alternative but to use the phase ‘vape pen’. What a vacuous word – ‘pen’!
But we do have a simple word, which is ‘heater’. The phrase ‘vape heater’ makes sense, and divorces vaping from smoking. ‘Heating’ is absolutely not the same as ‘burning’. So a vaping device is a ‘heater’.
But my essential point is that the Tyrants are not bothered about the toxins in vape liquid, although they pretend to be so. It is THE MACHINES that they want to ban. They want to ban the ‘heater machines’.
It really is a horrible mess, because no one knows how to define ‘ecigs’ (if we accept that the term means a heating machine).
But this lack of definition horrifies TobCon. It suggests that ‘things are out of THEIR control’. And so they adopt their own definition, which is ‘a gateway’. Damn it! the ecig is a machine!
I was amused to see tonight a video about vaping green tea:
The machine was used to vape tea.
The ‘Masters of Europe’ have decided to poke a snoozing beast. The only thing that matters is how the Masters escape from justice. They WILL escape.
It is so sad that the EU could have been wonderful. But it allowed itself to be hijacked. Nay, the EU is a thing. It was the Politicians who allowed it to be hijacked. If taken slowly, slowly, the EU could have balanced out aggressions and plunder, but it became an instrument of plunder in itself.
Ignore everything that comes from the EU. It is corrupt. Ignore everything which comes from Tobacco Control. It is corrupt. Carry on. Bugger the bastards.
You can get a nice flavour by vaping green tea. Can you get a nice flavour from smoking green tea?
No wonder that the Tobcom elite is hysterical. Smokers have suffered from ‘a thousand cuts’, but TobCon is now on the receiving end of the same ‘thousand cuts’. It may be that ‘stop smoking services’ have traction, but massively paid executives have not.
Tobacco Control is the epitome of Tyranny. ‘Banishment’ has been a tool of tyranny since time immemorial. It saves the tyrant from the possible ignomy of executing ‘deplorables’. Galileo was subjected to ‘house arrest’ for the rest of his life, which is much the same as exile. Exile was common in the Roman Empire and has been so ever since. What else was the transportation of criminals to Australia by English courts in the 19th century, but exile? What else was the exile of political opponents in Soviet Russia to the Gulag?
Smokers in England were ‘exiled’ to the outdoors in 2007. Sure, they were not sent to the penal colony of Australia, but the were still ‘excluded’. ‘Exile’ is ‘exclusion’. Thus, Galileo’s house arrest was just as much ‘exile’ as had he been sent to Outer Mongolia. It meant that he was unable to communicate with the wider world. But the Pope at the time was not antipathetic to Galileo’s knowledge of the solar system. In effect, Galileo said that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but it is still the ‘centre of the universe’ as far as God is concerned. Guys like Galileo were not stupid. They could argue that our vision of everything revolving around the Earth was true – in a sense – and that it did not matter if the physical detail was incorrect.
It has become more and more obvious that the ‘exclusion’ of smokers had nothing to do with the health of workers. Further, it is becoming more and more obvious that the ‘evidence’ (the ‘science’) was a morass of lies. Deliberate exaggerations are LIES. For example, if a child nicks a sweet from an open display of sweets in a shop, it is a LIE to say that he was stealing sweets from the shop, without saying how many sweets he stole. One sweet is not sweetS, and a handful is not a bucketful.
TobCon has fooled millions of people into believing that SHS is equivalent to the Sun going around the Earth and to a child pinching a sweet rather than a lorry load.
The Doll Doctors Study showed, without doubt (provided that it was not ‘fixed’, which is far from certain), that SHS is far too weak to cause trouble. Even Doll said so. He admitted that being in a room with a smoker would not trouble him.
There are all sorts of errors. For example, a person who deeply inhales does not retain the smoke. He blows almost all of it back out. Smoke rings? So, since a smoker blows all the smoke back out, does that mean that people who do not inhale much have the same risk? Well, no. According to the Doctors Study, heavy use of cigs ( 25 or more per day) caused death more often and earlier than moderate use (15 – 24), etc, and the mere use of X number of cigs, on average, causes horrible, torturous, exiled, persecuted deaths.
Tobacco Control has been in existence now for some decades. By its nature (free from legal control), it must be corrupt. It is like Lysenko science in Soviet Russia. Put a corrupt person in charge, and you get corruption in every aspect. By ‘corruption’ I do not necessarily mean financial corruption. I mean ‘torturing’ individuals by taxes and bans.
Sure, my use of the word ‘torture’ does not precisely equate to electrodes on genitals and water boarding, but the drip, drip of theft by taxation and bans of all sorts mounts up. It does not take many of such increments to arrive at gas chambers.
Our ‘elected representatives’ are supposed to be vigilant on our behalf, smokers and non-smokers. They are supposed to watch out for tyranny and block it. That is what they are for, and little else. They do not exist to pit smokers against non-smokers.
But there seems to be no way whatsoever to bring ‘experts’ to justice. They can say what they like and claim ‘authority’. Fine. Even the most cowardly Governing Party could ‘exile’ those ‘experts’.
The USA is going through a thrombosis in Higher Education. Its universities seem to have abandoned factual knowledge, and decided that emotional opinions will advance the human condition. Well, good luck with that.
I don’t know if President Trump or Prime Minister May really know that their DUTY is to reverse persecution. The UN must be massively reformed. The IPCC must be decimated to exclude authority. The FCTC must be demolished to do away with waste.
All these things are OBVIOUS! Only corruption keeps them going.
The reader will observe that the word truth is in inverted commas. I was directed to a site called ‘Science Direct’ (H/T xxx) about the failure of ‘science’ to explain how much safer ecigs, and smokeless tobacco, were than combustibles:
I don’t know anything about ‘Science Direct’, as to how popular as a journal it is. Suffice to say that the article seems to have been well researched and the authors put a lot of time into it.
But there is a flagrant error which goes unobserved again and again and again. It is that ‘teenage’ is a short period of time.
For years and years, Tobacco Control has juxtaposed ‘children and young people’. Neither of those two terms are accurate. Both are flexible. Science does not do ‘flexible’ unless flexibility is the topic. For example, radiation waves, such as light, are flexible, but gravity is not. Well, not until Einstein came along. Children flow into their teens and then into adulthood. Three three stages are enough. If you want to use the term ‘young children’, then you need also to be able to use the term ‘old children’. I have never seen such a term. But, in our language, we DO use the term ‘young children’ if it is necessary to specify, in a general sort of way, that a child has gone beyond being a baby but is not yet old enough to understand things with any clarity. How about ‘Young Adults’? What is the opposite? ‘Old Adults’?
It is a legal fact (since a line has to be drawn somewhere) that a person reaches his ‘majority’ on his 18th birthday, no matter how immature he might be. He becomes an adult. There is no such thing as a ‘young adult’ which can be defined. Such terms are propaganda and nothing but propaganda. And they know it.
It should be noted that a person of sevenTEEN and a person of eighTEEN, are both still ‘teens’. That fact throws all the propaganda about ‘children and young adults’ into the category of LIES, since it lumps a group of people from the age of zero to an unspecified upper limit into the same pot.
To avoid the implications of the short period of time which elapses in which a person is a teenager (13 to 19 – only seven years) the tyrants produced a ‘label’ – young adults. NO, they are not young adults. They are in transition, and you cannot label them.
The ‘study’ which I linked to makes the classic mistake, which is that teenage behaviour has a PURPOSE. It does not, other than amusement. Trying a cig or an ecig is amusement and nothing else. The future behaviour of teens cannot be predicted from what they do as teens. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise, since ‘the teens’ are in a state of transition from childhood to adulthood. “Almost all smokers start smoking in their teens” was probably true when ‘kids’ left school at 16 and started to earn. But Doll’s Doctors Study stated that the doctors, on average, started smoking at nineteen and a half. It is easy to see why that was – working class kids started earning, and were expected to earn, years before the trainee doctors were. It is not unlikely that working class, sixteen-year old earners also started drinking beer before trainee doctors.
But there is an even worse assumption, which is that youths were DRIVEN to smoke by evil tobacco companies. We should note that companies are things and can be neither evil nor good. I don’t recall any tobacco company executive or worker ever being tried for the crime of ‘inducing smoking’.
But, it gets even worse. Imagine lumping all alcoholic drinks into one evil devilment. Whether wine, beer, spirits – all are precisely equally evil. No distinction is made at all. All are guilty. That is what Prohibition in the USA around 1900 was. All are equally evil. But, to make things even sillier, it was THE PLACE, the saloon, which was vilified.
The linked study is false. It really is. It says that ecigs are harmful. Read it and you will see that stated within the first few sentences. Where is the evidence in real life that they are even remotely harmful? There is none. Well, that is unless you take a whiff of diesel fumes as being dangerous.
Perhaps we smokers should try to change the vocabulary. Perhaps we should demand to know if ‘harmful’ equals ‘dangerous’. For example, scratching your skin is harmful, but it is not dangerous (normally).
Further, no account whatsoever was paid to PLEASURE in that study. It was as though pleasure does not exist. But a recent survey of smokers said that 95% of smokers smoke for the pleasure. Would smokers continue to smoke if tobacco tasted foul? Tobacco is an acquired taste, as is alcohol, but it does not taste foul. For children, it tastes foul.
So you can see why I put ‘Truth’ inside inverted commas. That study ‘invents’ its own truth. But its truth is only a tiny bit of reality. Vapers have, for whatever reasons, stopped or reduced smoking. That has been their decision. They may have done so for financial reasons rather than health reasons, or from being able to vape in pubs, or any other complication. But none of these reasons register on the TC radar. They do not exist. The way that TC thinks is to argue about whether or not it is a good idea TO FORCE smokers to use ecigs. Remember that propaganda is a type of force.
Where are the psychologists when you want them? They are hidden in Universities doing fuck-all and avoiding their duty as ‘experts’.
What an utterly, totally, incredible mess! Throughout the world, billions of people ENJOY tobacco. There are many and varied varieties with all sorts of tastes, some strong and some weak, some suitable for cigars and some for pipes, and some for hookah, and some for chewing and some for snus and some for snuff. There are all sorts of variations and blends.
There really must be some DEVIL at work. It is the only explanation for political, medical, MSM, legal, etc, collusion. And what is that DEVIL? It is the likes of Rockefeller, Bloomberg, Gates, and all the other virtuous billionaires who want to atone for their sins by forcing good people to attack other good people.
It is sincerely to be hoped that Billionaire Trump can counter the waning effect the attempts of sinners like Gates, to atone for their sins by using their wealth to force others to atone for the sins of smoking etc. What those arse-holes miss is that they are not The Pope, or the Chief Rabbi, or the Top Muslim. They are no more than excessively rich individuals, and it would be a good idea if the stuck the wealth in a bank account and left it there, and left the rest of us alone. Or, perhaps, they could fund all the organisations which keep coming on TV asking for £2 per month, for all sorts or silly reasons (does anyone believe that tiny African children have plastic cups to fish water out of muddy puddles?).
But it is true that, despite my criticisms, the above study suggests a MASSIVELY more positive a gateway FROM smoking than TO smoking. It may well be that a few youths, transing from childhood to adulthood, might venture from trying an ecig to trying a cig. I cannot understand how serious ‘professors’ can simplify such actions as though they were the only influences in the lives of teens.
What is absolutely the worst scenario is that politicians give these people a scrap of notice. The best thing that Trump could do, if he has the power, is to remove all Federal funding. But that also applies in the UK. Who pays for ‘Global Warming’ academics to strut around?
Throughout history, people have struggled against Tyranny. Even the assassins of Julius Ceaser claimed that Ceaser was a tyrant, and that justified the assassination. What is it about tyrants which upsets people? I guess that it is that they always demand that it is their way or no way. Black and white. There have been lots of revolts against tyranny throughout history. In recent centuries, the French Revolution was a notable revolt against the aristocracy, and the Russian revolution was against the Russian aristocracy, which resulted in Communist Russia, which turned out to be just as much a tyranny as what went before, if not worse.
Are we now free from tyranny? Of course not!!! Our elected representatives have imposed a new tyranny – the tyranny of HEALTH.
The vote for the Smoking Ban was approved overwhelmingly in the House of Commons. Those that voted for it made an assumption, which is that it was their way or no way. It was a tyrannous assumption. No pub, club, restaurant or other ‘public place’ could opt out. That is how tyrants operate. Black and white, my way or no way.
Thus, our democratic processes have become tyrannous.
It is a weird thing, is it not? The UN was set up for the purpose of defusing situations which might lead to world war. It enabled, say, the USA to discuss things with Russia and to apportion ‘areas of influence’. It has worked out very well, nasty though it may seem. But it was not the UN which brought about the ‘Peace’ – it was the agreement between Russia and the USA. The UN consists of less than 200 countries, most of whom have no clout at all. The WHO is the same, except that it has been taken over (acquired) by ‘special interest groups’, such as the Zealots who think that all tobacco plantations must be destroyed and the land used to grown lettuces. They disregard that that some land is useless for growing lettuces, but good for growing tobacco plants.
Once you permit a tyrannous act, you open the door to more such acts, and they will become more and more demanding and tyrannous.
So, to get to the point, the EU Tyranny has produced another edict. It can be seen here:
Council directive 2011/64/EU sets out EU rules on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco. In particular, it defines and classifies various manufactured tobacco products according to their characteristics and lays down the relevant minimum rates of excise duty for the different types of products. The purpose of the Directive is to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and a high level of health protection.
For anyone who wishes to to understand the Tyranny, it is important to clearly differentiate between “the proper functioning of the internal market” and “a high level of health protection”.
The two ideas are not connected. The market does not need health, nor does health need the market.
I do not know why it is so, but it seems that all systems of Government become Tyrannies sooner or later.
Once upon a time, it was not worthwhile to grow your own tobacco plants, although there was no law against it. There simply was no point, since tobacco companies, big and small, produced a variety of products, not just cigars, cigarettes, pipe tobaccos, chewing tobaccos, snus, snuff, etc at a reasonable price. Imagine trying to build your own car with the parts as compared with buying the car ‘ready-made’. Some people really enjoy building their own cars with parts, and why not, if cars are their hobby. Are such cars ‘safe’ from a ‘Health’ point of view?
So, once again, we have the tyranny of the aristocracy. We are back to square one. Our elected representatives have NO IDEA that they are promoting tyranny.
A particular statement in that edict was especially revealing to me. It was:
“A second problem is that raw tobacco and intermediate products can be diverted to the illicit manufacturing of smoking products or sold in small quantities to consumers for home processing…”
Note the conjunction of ‘illicit manufacturing’ and ‘ ‘sold in small quantities’.
“Freedom From Tyranny” is reaching an important point in history, and it would behove us to elect politicians who recognise that fact.
Perhaps we have an ‘in’ in this respect. Writing to your MP about smoking bans is a waste of time. But perhaps accusing them of enabling Tyranny might wake them up.
I have often thought of writing to my MP, but have always thought that it is a waste of time and effort. But that was when I contemplated writing about smoking bans specifically. I think that it is a different thing when you write about tyranny.
So this new ‘directive’ wants to tax ecigs as though they were ‘tobacco products’, among other things. It is up to vapers to be militant. This is a situation of ‘no quarter’. No negotiations, no blathering. Ecigs are NOT tobacco products. Fight, fight and fight again.
A few years ago, the ‘owners’ of one of my local pubs had decided to sell up. They were two ‘sisters’ (?). On their last night, they had a bit of a celebration – sort of. But there was still hardly anyone in. At the very end, I decided to see what would happen if I lit a cigarette, and proceeded to do so.
You would think that there would have been laughter and that I would have been handed a saucer or something. But, no. One of the departing ‘sisters’ came around the bar and attempted to snatch the cig from my mouth. There were ructions. There was nearly a fight. And that was on their last night. Even though the sisters were finishing and departing the next day, they were so ‘conditioned’ that one of them could not help herself. She reacted unconditionally in an obedient state. A zombie state.
I think that there are masses of people who exist in a zombie state. I don’t mean that they are unhappy or confused. Indeed, the opposite is true. They are quite happy and content. In a way, the vast majority of the population are quite happy to be serfs.
Not an awful long time ago, say, one hundred year or so, the ‘aristocracy’ still controlled England. I’m not sure that they still not do. It is just that the aristocracy has changed from landowners to academics. Hardly a day goes by without some ‘academic study’ appearing. The latest one that I have seen today is that coffee is dangerous. A couple of cups of coffee per day is OK, but more than that might dissolve your brain cells, or something. Utterly crackers. Perhaps the researchers have not drunk enough coffee to be normal and rational.
The serious bit about my cogitations is TIMESCALES. It is not sufficient to say that second hand tobacco smoke might be dangerous. The Zealots must describe the TIMESCALE over which SHS might actually cause damage. It takes thirty years for SOME people to be adversely affected by smoking. How much longer would SHS take? Everyone would be dead for some other reason before such effect would be felt.
My heading is important because, if we (the zombies) accept that Parliament can pass laws which DEMAND that citizens persecute each other, then there is no end to how far that can go. Citizens can be permitted and encouraged to attack anyone who seems to have done something that offends them.
The swamp must be drained, and ‘the swamp’ is that ‘one size fits all’. For a start (although it will come at the back of the queue) citizens who own bars must, via their associations, refuse to obey. But there is a problem – the top people in their associations are fearful.
Fear is the instrument of control. Control has no other instrument. in 2007, with the Smoking Ban, Parliament destroyed itself.