Tobacco CONTROL tactics. ( HOW TOBACCO CONTROL DECEIVES. (See sidebar).

“SMOKERS BLACK LUNG” IS A FRAUD. See this post by Frank Davis:




Manic Depressives In The Medical Profession


I could be a Manic Depressive. I do not know whether I am or not. Judging from the amount of time that I look for bad news regarding tobacco regulation and stuff like that, I would say that I deliberately put myself in harms way. It would be much simpler if I accepted the junk science and chucked all the tobacco which I bought from Spain in the bin, and if I insisted that Herself does likewise. By ‘insist’, I mean demand, indeed, I mean force her to do so. Indeed, if she does not, then I shall do so. I would be ‘manic’, would I not?, if I acted in that way.

But what about the ‘depressive’ aspect?

‘Depression’ looks for negatives. I suppose that the opposite, equally demented mental state, is only to see positives, but I do not know if there is a suitable medical description for such a ‘manic’ mental state. Think of the Inquisition. Think of the delight of Inquisitors when a person being tortured confessed. Were not such people ‘impressed’?

I have used the word ‘impressed’ as the opposite of ‘depressed’ because it seems to be the only reasonable way to describe the situation. I like that idea. The word ‘Impressed’ implies acceptance, whereas the word ‘Depressed’ implies rejection. There might well be a mental state of ‘manic impression’.

The above is an introduction to what we are about to listen to. I must refer you to Grandad’s site:

Introducing the Tobacco Control Comedy Show

There, you will be able to listen to a Manic Depressive ‘Professor of Medicine’ demand that a cure for an ailment, being the sickness of addiction to nicotine, is ineffective because individuals, no matter how many, who say that the cure worked for them, are deranged. That ‘cure’ is the ecig. You can tell that the manic doctor is ‘Depressive’ because he sees only the negative possibilities of undefined future risks, even though proper scientific studies have found little, if any, risk.


I was talking in the pub tonight to a couple of young friends about Brexit. Both are about 40 years old. Both are going to vote ‘Leave’. Immigration was not the first problem that they identified. The first problem was ‘lack of control’. Immigration was not even mentioned as such. It was loss of control of our democracy which they identified. I was surprised that these two guys saw that. I was just a little humbled for my failure to see that ordinary Englishmen were not as gullible as I thought.

The ELITE WORLD EMPERORS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. People like Cameron and Corbyn are either part of that Elite or are assisting them.


I really do not understand the thought processes of people like Cameron. Regarding the EU, they seem to be like rabbits in car headlights – they just do not know what to do. They are terrified and immobile. They cannot see what is clearly obvious, which is that the likes of Juncker are obedient servants of whoever.

Thus we see the malaise of ‘Authority’, and what caused WW1 and WW2. It was ‘manic depression’, aka jealousy.

Criminalising Ordinary Citizens


I was putting some paper and cardboard into the buff-coloured recycling bin this evening, and a thought struck me. Suppose that I put the paper and cardboard into the green (food waste and garden vegetation) bin, vegetation into the maroon bin (glass bottles, plastic bottles and tins), and glass bottles etc into the buff bin? Would anyone notice? In fact, I wonder if bloody minded people are already doing so? The reason that I say that is that I have seen a binman come round in advance of the lorry and look into the bins.

Not that I would do such a thing, but my thinking concerned all the work that we do, as cooperative citizens, which we are not rewarded for. We do not begrudge our cooperation, even if we are bullied into that cooperation. The fact is that we willingly cooperate, despite the threats of violence, in the form of fines, if we do not cooperate. We WILLINGLY cooperate.

And yet, every year, the bullying and threats and demands for our cooperation grow and grow. In the USA, Obama’s Government have demanded that, in schools, male children should be allowed to use the girls’ toilets, and vice versa, for any child which identifies itself as ‘transgender’. if a school does not comply, then there is a threat of violence in the form of withdrawal of funding and other things. But what is just as likely is that the poor Head and the school board will be ‘named, shamed and ridiculed’. A New York Times article, which I read earlier, described Obama’s demands as madness. The point that the Times made was that those ‘rules’ were the epitome of discrimination, in that 99.9% if children were not transgender, and would not want to share toilets with persons of the opposite gender, especially if those ‘children’ were seventeen years old. It is true – there is a craziness in Government. If a youth has male genitalia, then that youth is male. If a youth has female genitalia, then that youth is female. The situation would change if a youth had an operation to reverse those physical facts, in which case, ‘he’ would indeed become ‘she’, and vice versa.

Dictatorship has changed its character. In the Middle East, dictatorship still has its former character: create your own army and batter your opposition physically. But in Europe, and other so-called civilisations, the new character is to grab the means of communication and use those means, in every way possible, to undermine and thus destroy the opposition. Even better, to make regulations which deny the opposition any means to use modern communication. Or rather, and here is the clever trick, allow the opposition a squeak, but drown that squeak with shouting and ranting. How many times have we seen Forest allowed to comment in a newspaper article, only to be drowned out by several comments from Health zealots?

But, at the end of the day, it is not Forest or Professor this, or Doctor that, who suffer: it is the ordinary, cooperative citizen.

It has always been my personal wish to be as self-sufficient as possible. That does not mean that I will dig up my lawns and grow vegetables! No, the work involved in such a project would outweigh the benefits. When I first moved into this house, there were apple trees and pear trees in part of the garden. Lovely – except the copious fruit of those trees all appeared at the same time, and an awful lot of the fruit had been invaded by bugs of one sort or another. That is, we had copious amounts of apples and pears which had been bored into by maggots. Eventually, I chopped the trees down and replaced them with bushes and flowers. After all, fruit and veg is not so expensive as to render it worthwhile to make a huge effort to stop the fruit being invaded by bugs.

No, I mean self-sufficient in the sense of being able to do my own household and machinery repairs, having a set of tools to do those jobs, having my car’s workshop manual, knowing the electrical diagram of the central heating system, etc. In recent times, it has been getting to know the effects of multiple sclerosis and coping with those effects.

I do not have to do such things. I could leave them to ‘professionals’, but I do not mind. In general terms, I call for assistance only when I really have to. The more that herself and I, and our family, can get along without outside interference, the better. We have received lots of help, in one way or another, from the district nurses, and I do not for a moment decry that help. It has been essential from time to time. But I have paid for that help over my working lifetime, have I not?

My essential argument is that the State will not leave us alone. It demands more and more of us, even as far as making it illegal to be self-sufficient.

The misuse of monopoly power by the State surrounds us, every day in every way. It can demand our savings in taxes and hand it over in billions to the corrupt EU, the corrupt WHO, the corrupt FCTC, the corrupt IPCC. It should have been obvious from the beginning that the UN, and all its works, would become corrupt. Such monopolistic Empires always do. Further, because of the monopoly, such corruption can be hidden well away.

No one is talking about the corruption in the EU prior to the referendum. Why not? I wonder if the Brexit side has been infiltrated by the likes of Johnson MP deliberately to pretend to be for Brexit, but, in fact, intent upon disabling Brexit by making the wrong arguments.

Why has corruption not been mentioned? Should that not be a major consideration? The corruption need not be financial. It could be ’empire building’; it could be health; it could be homosexual marriage. Such corruption requires only that administrators shrug their shoulders and let special interest groups have their way.

In the meantime, our elected representatives turn their eyes away. Instead of defending the people, they coerce them. They are not happy with the ‘willing cooperation’. They need to feel the pleasure of POWER. Power demands coercion. Willing cooperation is antagonistic to power. Power demands the use of force in one way or another. Only if willing cooperation is absent is power required. That is why those who are ‘in power’ ALWAYS take things to the next level.

But how can people fight against the corruption of power? I suppose that the answer is not to give those people power in the first place. Is that not what provoked Magna Carta’? The fact that the King has been given, or taken, too much power? And is that not the same with the EU and the UN? Were not those organisations given too much power in the first place? By their nature, they were given monopolistic power without accountability to the people.

It surprises me that a great deal more prominence is not given to the fact that the person who voted, on behalf of the UK, in favour of the recent EU TPD, thought that ecigs had been dropped from the directive before she signed it. I am not concerned about the actual individual who signed. It is more that, as a Minister, she did not know what she was signing up to. That is intellectual corruption of the worst kind. It is like the all-powerful King signing a document which he had not read.

The problem that we have right now with the EU was always obvious – our politicians did not read the documents or question them.

There has appeared a contempt of The People. Even if the people cooperate, they are still held in contempt.

There is a simple answer. It is “Start Again”. I cannot help but feel that, as a result of the internet, the days of mass propaganda are limited. The days when control of radio and TV by the State, and thus the exchange of information, was taken for granted, have come to an end. Even if ‘Remain’ wins, the UK Government is ‘on notice’ that the present situation is unacceptable.


But what is important to me is that the little guy, who is lawful and cooperative, is the person who is being battered again and again. For example, excise taxes on petrol hit the little guy. They do not hit petrol companies or their investors. The only way that such companies could be hit for taxes would be if Governments got together. Governments in the EU have got together, but they hit the ordinary guy, and not the companies.

The Tobacco Control Industry is the worse example of all. Only lately has it demanded a tax on tobacco companies directly. Until recently, it had demanded, and got, increased taxes on the little guy. Even now, it is demanding that the little guy must not be allowed to buy a few grams of ‘raw’ tobacco.

From ‘raw’ tobacco, you can make your own snus; you can make your own ecig liquid, although it will not contain nicotine (because the process of creating the ecig liquid will ‘boil away’ the nicotine); you can make snuff; an individual ‘free’ inhabitant of the healthy, wealthy West can be self-sufficient in the enjoyment of tobacco. But the corrupt authorities have criminalised such a person.

It cannot stand, and Judges must stop the persecution of cooperative, law-abiding persons by defending their right to be self-sufficient. It is already apparent that Government antics have eaten away at self-sufficiency.

The fact is that wealthy people are no happier than poorer people. Happiness, or rather, Contentment, does not depend upon wealth.

All religions in the world say that. But, freedom from want is very important. No one can be ‘content’ if they are starving, wet and cold. The same could be said of people who are persecuted for wishing to enjoy tobacco, or chocolate, or cannabis, or meat and potato pies.

The curious idea which comes from these thought is that the correct way to tax sinful products is to tax the companies which profit from the sinful products. But that also implies that those who simply enjoy products should not, individually or collectively, be taxed on the principle that each person is an individual who can decide for himself. That is called ‘Liberty’. Thus, the question of ‘what is a sinful product?’ could be properly addressed.

The UK Government could sort these things out, if it was free to do so, but it has tethered itself to the corrupt monopoly of various international agents.

Win or lose, Brexit is only the beginning. What must be brought to an end is the criminalisation of ordinary people just because they refuse to obey directions.

Democracy Has Become Tyranny


There comes a point where it is obvious. In this case, it is not about the EU especially. I became aware today, via Taking Liberties that the Gov has issued a consultation about licensing of equipment and the supply chain of tobacco and tobacco products from outside the UK. There was a sort of consultation about this matter some time ago.

The objective is said to be to stop the illicit trade in tobacco and products. But think a second. There are now no major tobacco product manufacturers in the UK or Ireland, so who is this measure aimed at? Who is importing ‘equipment’? What sort of ‘equipment’? How big is that business to require an Act of Parliament, or some such?

As I recall, Pritti Patel MP is the Government Minister who is in charge, but almost certainly knows absolutely nothing about it, just like Soubry MP and the TPD, especially Article 20 about ecigs. Soubry voted for the TPD while thinking that ecigs had been dropped from the TPD.

Is it not fairly obvious that ‘criminals’ who import tobacco and tobacco products are already using ‘illicit’ methods to do so? What ‘criminal’ in his right mind would expose himself and his ‘gang’ to inspection by Customs? I doubt that those ‘criminals’ are sufficiently stupid to do so, although I remember reading somewhere of a ‘criminal’ who tried to order a vast amount of tobacco leaf via a ‘legitimate’ channel. Needless to say, the importer reported this attempt to Customs, but, as far has he knows, nothing was done. Quite laughable, really.

There are legitimate uses for tobacco leaf, such as bedding for animals. But it must also be borne in mind that tobacco leaf, in itself, is an agricultural product, and not a tobacco product. I have seen the phrase ‘raw’ tobacco, but there is no need for the word ‘raw’ – the word ‘tobacco’ means dried tobacco plant leaves. The process of drying is called ‘curing’, but it is the same thing essentially. It is just that the drying is done in a controlled environment so that the leaf is not dried too quickly. It really is as simple as that, although the process requires knowledge and experience. Curing tobacco plant leaves lies somewhere between ‘drying’ and ‘cooking’.

The only people who import tobacco for their own use are those who have the time to mess about with it. It is a hobby (blending) and it enables some people to be self-sufficient. No one cheats the taxman since the appropriate taxes, such as VAT, are paid, in accordance with EU rules for ‘agricultural products’. Is grape juice, prepared for the home making of wine, ‘raw’ wine? Does an importer of such ‘raw’ wine have to be licensed?

The problem, as usual, is that Tobacco Control is exercising its monopoly in a tyrannical fashion, and people like Pritti Patel, just like Soubry, cannot see how they are being used.

It is clear to anyone with eyes to see that this licensing thing is just another jobs-worthy thing for ASH ET AL to justify their existence. They dream up these ideas, which have no there effect than to criminalise more and more people, to show that they ‘are doing something’. What effect will ‘no smoking in cars with kids present’ have? NONE WHATSOEVER. Parents will continue to smoke if they wish to, and, almost surely, trying to hide the fact that a parent is smoking will induce more danger of crashes. ‘Plain Packaging’ is even more idiotic, even if less dangerous. Just another idea dreamed up by ASH ET AL to justify their existence.

But Cameron et al fall for it every time. It just does not seem to occur to them that individuals will continue as they have before, and wait for Customs to waste time, energy and money to convict them of a crime which is not a crime, according to the EU.

I am almost tempted to vote ‘Remain’ in the referendum, but I shall not. It may be that I might gain some temporary advantage re going to Spain and bringing back loads of cigs for my own, and my wife’s consumption. But that does not override my abhorrence of tyranny and corruption.

I say again. Why is it that the ‘Leave’ campaign do not mention the corruption? That is especially obvious. In this political campaign, ‘proof’ is irrelevant. Osborne can produce a Treasury estimate of economic damage of leaving the EU, but it does not have to be true. Who says that treaties about the common market will be annulled because we leave the European UNION. Get it? We leave the European POLITICAL UNION, not the common market. It has been said that Cameron negotiated an agreement that the UK would not be part of ‘closer and closer union’, but that is a sham. There was nothing to negotiate. If the UK decided not to be part of ‘closer and closer union’, then the Commission of the EU could do nothing about it. Nothing was negotiated. It was a sham.

Making cigs with tobacco leaf is not simple. It requires quite a lot of work. The leaf comes in scrunched up pieces which have to be smoothed out, and it has to be inspected to ensure that hard, thick twigs of the main stem have been removed, then it has to be shredded and, in some cases, chopped into small pieces, then it has to be inserted into tubes. But it also sometimes is too dry or too damp, and needs to be damped or dried. Only people who have the time, which mostly means retired people who just want to amuse themselves, can be bothered.

Once again, ASH ET AL have created a problem, and insisted that the Nation incurs a cost in Customs Officers which cannot be justified in tax savings. Customs officers can only do so much, and burdening them with even more duties can only mean an increase in costs. But ASH ET AL are only concerned with maintaining their own income. They do not give a shit about the costs that they demand. Those costs are running into billions of pounds without any financial gain to speak of. It is not just the costs of ASH ET AL – it is the costs borne by others, such as publicans. Even publicans who have managed to survive have suffered a depletion of their incomes as a result of the useless and fraudulent smoking bans.

I think that many people are beginning to realise that modern life, economics, industry, trade, academia, the NHS, etc, have become so complex and unwieldy that it is not possible for politicians to know what they are doing.

Is there a solution?

I think that there is, but it does not lie in some sort of ‘authoritative’ UN, WHO, IPCC’, “One World” body. It lies in cooperation within individual nations, and groups of individual nations. What is important is to identify nations and accept them. Thus, Spain is Spain, and the people of Spain identify themselves as Spanish, along with the culture of Spain. People who are not Spanish can only marvel at Spanish culture and enjoy it. British culture, French culture, German culture, etc, are different, and can also be marvelled at and enjoyed. Those cultures cannot be separated from the places. Thus, it makes no sense to expect Pakistani culture to replace English culture. My own observations of Pakistani expatriates is that they are Muslims,  and that they fiercely adhere to their faith, but that they ‘live and let live’. But, as with tobacco control statistics, a tiny minority of effects can wreak mayhem on all of us.

Is that not true of the effects of Second Hand Tobacco Smoke? Who has calculated the time-delay in the effects of SHS?

The fact is that the more that ‘Rulers’ are divorced from the People, the more ignominious that they become.

Democracy is supposed to correct that tendency. The EU is divorced from the People and is undemocratic. How is it possible to explain the persecution of smokers, as evinced by this new proposition that a person cannot import tobacco leaf without a licence, other than as a modern day genocide? It is the same thing, except that the ‘genocide’ is directed at people who enjoy tobacco. There is no difference in principle. Education and Persuasion are on a different level. They do not persecute, demonise, demoralise, stigmatise.

The  Smoking Ban was inflicted upon us by trickery in Parliament and Force. We must never forget that. All the rest since then has been just an extension of of that trickery and Force.

Force is tyranny.



Is Vaping Safer Than Smoking?


I have been reading several sites today about the’fatal motion’ which has been proposed by Lord Callanon (?) for debate in the House of Lords about the TPD. His objective is to annul Article 20 0f the TPD especially, but the effect of the motion would be to annul the whole TPD regulations. Whether or not ‘their lordships’ have the courage to throw a spanner into the machinery of the EU is open to doubt, but they might just do it.

For the critical thing in that motion concerns the relative safety of vaping as compared with smoking. It has been put about, especially in the USA, that vaping is as dangerous as smoking. Suppose that I suggest that vaping IS as dangerous as smoking in the sense that smoking dangers have been massively exaggerated? 95% of nothing is still nothing, and 5% of nothing is still nothing. Suppose that no one smoked. Would epidemiological studies find some other specific culprit for some people dying before others? What might that be? It could be alcohol, or pies, or chocolate, or fruit. Why not?

I was reading a study tonight produced by some Oz university. Note the department: ‘RMIT University – School of Economics, Finance and Marketing’. Note, NOT public health.

It is a messy read, full of jargon, but what it essentially says is that the authors of three papers which were supposed to have proven that PP is working in OZ, were telling fibs; that the public data upon which those papers relied produced ‘statistically INsignificant’ results, and that it was wrong for the authors to claim that their research showed that PP was working.

Is it reasonable to therefore question ANY AND ALL research coming out of those universities? For example, a question on one of their surveys asked if the respondent did not like the new cig packets. If the respondent said they he did not, then that answer was taken as proof the PP was working! I do not like the medical porn on cig packets, but that does not mean in the slightest that I am put off smoking. I would like to say that the opposite is true – that I am even more determined to carry on smoking, but that is not true. The fact is that I do not even SEE the medical porn. How many times have we seen adverts on TV showing horrific scenes from films, which adverts are supposed to persuade us to go and watch the film? Should those adverts not put us off going to watch the film because of the violence, sex, gore, bad language, etc? That is not how our minds work. We know the difference between stories and reality. When my daughters were children, I used to tell them a story at bedtime when they were in bed. My stories were made up as I went along. They were always a bit exciting, but the excitement depended upon dangers. “Once upon a time, some explorers found a new island. It was a nice island. There were lots of apple trees,and things like that, to eat. It was so warm that the explorers could sleep with their tents open. Then, in the night, a horrible thing happened…….” You get the drift. Their eyes were agog, but they slept soundly. Children know the difference between stories and real life. How much more should adults know the difference between stories and real life? That is what bothers me.

There is something about Doll’s Doctors Study which has always bothered me. I can accept the ‘evidence’ that many more smokers die from LC than non-smokers. But I find it difficult to accept that there is, on average, a thirty year delay between starting smoking and getting LC. It is that delay which has no scientific justification whatsoever. As far as I know, no mechanism has been explained which can justify that delay. Could it not be just as real that there comes a point, probably in old age, where a person’s lungs can no longer cope with ANY toxins? In the UK, masses of very old people (over 80 years of age) die from pneumonia. It is reasonable to presume that they are taken to hospital and that efforts are made to save their lives – without success. Why ‘without success’? I would say that ‘without success’ is just not studied, or the results of such studies are suppressed. The simple explanation of ‘without success’ would be that their very old bodies cannot cope with the anti-bacterial drug any more than it can cope with the bacteria. Put very simply, their bodies are so old that their bodies are rotting.

It is an awful thing when a mere blogger has to say that.


The Tobacco Control Industry depends for its continuance on people NOT stopping smoking. The TCI has said again and again, that it wants a controlled reduction in smoking levels. It does not a want a sudden drop. Livelihoods depend upon that controlled reduction. Thus, according to its own ‘science’, it is prepared to accept the deaths of millions upon millions by not calling for prohibition and the destruction, world-wide, of all tobacco plantations NOW.

Why is that? There are two ways of looking at it: 1) The TCI is perpetuating its gravy train, or,2) that the dangers of smoking have been exaggerated. I know that those two ideas are not really ‘either or’, but that is the state of logic in organisations like the TCI. The ecig controversy is bringing out the illogicalities of TC. If smoking is as dangerous as the Doctors Study said, then smoking MUST BE BANNED. Or rather, the supply of tobacco products, and the growing of tobacco plants must be banned. There really is no half-measure.

Some people might say that tobacco products should be treated like bottles of toilet cleaner. Why not? Should not cigs come in childproof containers?

The proof that the TC Industry is dishonest and corrupt is precisely in that. The TPD requires that ecig liquid comes in childproof containers, but does not demand that cigs, that 95% percent more dangerous product, comes in childproof containers. Therefore, they must regard cigs as not lethal, even though they say that they are.

I read somewhere that the strategy of ‘The Elite’ is to permit discussion, but only within the bounds that ‘The Elite’ decide. There is a phrase for it, but I cannot remember that phrase. Let’s call it ‘The King’s Limitation’. For example, “Processed foods are bad”. In a discussion about that subject, anyone who dared to suggest that ALL foods that we buy are ‘processed’ in one way or another would be shouted down and abused. But the word ‘processed’ would still not be defined by ‘The Elite’.

Thus, no one is allowed to dispute ‘the bible’ of Doll’s Doctors Study. The fact that that ‘bible’ demands the immediate destruction of tobacco plantations world-wide is OUTSIDE ‘The King’s Limitation’.

It is a matter of fact that ecigs have forced a confrontation which has breached ‘The King’s Limitation’. The UN, WHO, EU have lost control of ‘The Limitation’. There is a breech in the foundations of the citadel 0f the TCI. The whole citadel could come tumbling down.

So let not smokers and vapers fall out among themselves. It is a perfectly legitimate weapon to undermine the TCI, which wants to penalise vapers as much as smokers, to claim that vaping is 95%, or 99.9999% safer than smoking. One ought not to say 100% safer because the dangers of smoking have not actually been definitively calculated. On the other hand, you could say 110% ‘better’ than smoking, if vaping is a matter of pleasure. Or 200%, or any other number, because ‘better’ (or ‘safer’, for that matter) are words which are meaningless without context.

It isn’t just the immediate blather of the TPD that needs to be addressed. It is the whole edifice of ‘limitations of discussion’. THERE IS NO PROOF that smoking, in itself, causes LC. That was brought out forcefully in ‘The Mctear Case’:

The Judge, in that case, said that the witnesses (which included Doll himself) had not produced sufficient evidence which proved that EVEN JUST ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES that smoking causes Lung Cancer. Note the balance of probabilities rather than proof positive.

Ecigs have thrown the discussion wide open. ‘The King’s Limitation’ of discussion has been dumped, and vapers must take advantage of that. Discussion is wide open. There are no limitations.

Of the greatest importance is to understand that Article 20 of the TPD is renegade, and that only politicians without principles could pass such a directive into the law of England.

Forgive typos. I must to bed.

The Curious Thinking of Tobacco Control


Eventually, circumlocution bites back. The word ‘circumlocution’ means ‘talking around’. It means not addressing a problem directly to solve the problem.It means discussing a problem and complicating it, but not solving it.

I read a perfect example tonight. Some ‘professor’ at a university (Glasgow?) said that the medical porn on cig packets might be counter-productive. He reasoned that smokers were put off trying to ‘quit’ because the the horror messages on cig packs overwhelmed them; that smokers, seeing the medical porn, would despair because they could not cope, mentally, with the gap between reality and the medical porn. Has any reader of this blog ever seen a person with a huge cancer tumour on his neck, or anything even remotely similar, whatever the reason for that tumour? His idea is that smokers are put off trying to quit because the medical porn suggests that it is terribly difficult to quit.

So does this professor say that the medical porn should be discontinued? Well, yes, sort of. But he wants it replaced by ‘positive’ messages rather than ‘negative’ messages. Perhaps he has in mind pictures of athletes throwing themselves over obstacles, or happy ‘quitters’ grinning.

What he fails to observe is that smokers are not as pliant as he thinks. “smoking kills” messages have been on tobacco packs for years, but I never see those messages, any more than I see ‘traffic light’ messages. I just do not see them, nor do I care.

Feelings of ‘guilt’ and ‘shame’ do not derive from cig packets. They derive from laws. It is LAWS which promote guilt and shame. But people are not stupid, regardless of the expectations of professors of this or that. People know that their feelings of guilty or shame are irrational, even if it takes some time for them to come to that conclusion. It is when people realise that they have been cheated that they fight back.

The Appeal Against the Judgement that PP is OK


Here is a scenario. Some criminal thugs have been tried and found guilty of waging war against each other using firearms. In the USA, the ‘bearing of arms’ is a civil right. That is, anyone of age can buy a gun and ammunition and use that armament in self-protection. There are variations in the law about ‘carrying’, but that is not important in our similitude.

So the Judge says, “You have been found guilty of waging war against each other using firearms. It has been argued that you have a perfect right to do so. But I must draw your attention to Law xyz, which says that thugs are only permitted to carry and use 0.33 rifles, and that those rifles must have a strap, and that those rifles must be worn in full view by means of using the strap to carry the rifle over the shoulder. I therefore order that all your other firearms – pistols, machine guns, colt 45s, etc, must be handed over to the police and destroyed or disarmed. But you still retain the right to ‘bear arms’, as the Constitution decrees. You are each fined a billion dollars and are to be confined in a correctional establishment for 999 years for breaching law xyz”

It seems like the Judge who threw out the arguments of Tobacco Companies, that their ‘intellectual property rights’ over their logos and the design of their cig packets were protected by international law, fell into a similar trap. He pontificated about the evils of tobacco and tobacco companies, and said that any steps taken to reduce their malign influence were good, but fell short of stopping them from selling their lethal products. You can have a 0.33 rifle, and you can use it, but you must carry it about openly over your shoulder. And you can have the ammunition for the rifle. You will not be condemned for having the rifle and the ammunition, or using them to kill people, but you will be condemned for not openly carrying the rifle by the strap over your shoulder, or possessing some other type of firearm.

No one with any intellectual discipline would accept such arguments for one moment. It would be THE USE of the firearms which would predominate and not the variations in the design of the firearms. It makes no sense to permit the provision and use of a gun, provided that only one design of the gun is used. All that would do is promote that one design of gun, and the ammunition that goes with it.

No wonder Philip Morris has decided not to appeal.In fact, I don’t really understand why Japan International has decided to do so. Maybe Philip Morris is happy with its lion’s share of the market whereas JTI is not. After all, it is plain for any intelligent person to see that PP favours existing brands.

Tobacco Control must also see that, and want it. What they would earnestly wish to be the case would be one world-wide tobacco company that they could switch off as and when they decide. Thus, again, we see the stupidity of tobacco companies. They needed to proliferate their brands and companies years and years ago, and not amalgamate into fewer and fewer huge companies. They should have split up and not amalgamated.


The question is whether the Judge allowed his personal prejudices, as promoted by ASH in private, to obscure his judgement about the importance of international treaties. Was he qualified to make such judgements? What did he know about international treaties? If a nation, which agreed to an international treaty, denies that treaty on the grounds of ‘health’, how safe are other international treaties? You could also turn that around. You could say that international treaties override national laws. For example, if there was an international treaty that oranges could be freely traded among the states signing up to  the treaty, it would be unconscionable that a particular state could limit the arrangements of the treaty on the grounds that oranges were not healthy.

I’ll leave it at that for now.

The World Bank


Someone drew attention to the World Bank involvement in the Tobacco Control Industry.

Frankly, I do not know enough to judge, but it seems to me that ‘A BANK’ ought not to be involved in TC. Banks are concerned with money, and not ethics. They exist purely to provide a safe place for people to put their money (like a big safe) and facilitate business and purchases via loans. They also provide the means to move money about. Here is a Wikipedia article about the World Bank:

As usual, you must bear in mind the biases of the people who wrote the Wikipedia article.

It seems that the World Bank has no other function than to grant loans, funded by the healthy, wealthy West, to build infrastructures such as roads and ports in impoverished countries. That is a worthy cause, is it not? That is especially so in that the World Bank insists that repayment of loans must be prioritised by the country involved.

But how on earth did the World Bank become involved in tobacco control?

This site gives a clue:

According to the World Bank’s Study, Tobacco has zero benefit in economic terms world-wide. For brevity, let us say that any benefits which accrue to workers in tobacco plantations are far outweighed by the the costs of smoking elsewhere. What this implies is that, from a whole world perspective, it is better for tobacco plantation workers to starve to death at the age of 30, than for people in the healthy, wealthy West to die ‘prematurely’ at the age of 80 years.

But is it true that the World Bank imposes a condition that tobacco must be controlled as a condition of a World Bank loan? I have no idea. It is all secret.

The final version of the TPD was concocted in secret. If Soubry MP and Health Minister is anything to go by, then the TPD was passed without due consideration, either by Parliament in the UK or by similar Parliaments throughout Europe. That is, this TPD has been imposed by A DICTATOR.

It is impossible to ignore the authoritarian impositions of the World Bank. But who controls the World Bank? Some HUMAN BEINGS must be in charge.

Unlike an Ocean, or the atmosphere, where chaos is supreme, organisations such as the World Bank can make whatever rules they wish to make, without democratic scrutiny.

It may well be that what organisations like the World Bank actually do is not the important thing. It may well be that scrutiny and accountability are far, far more important.

Is that not called “DEMOCRACY”?

About David Cameron – Prime Minister and Champion of the ‘Remain’ Campaign


A link provided by Ed in a comment on my last post led me in a strange direction about D Cameron, MP and PM of the UK. The link was to a source that suggested that Cameron was instrumental in covering up a paedophilia ring in high places. It was quite amusing to read about the tenuous links of A to B (eg, the links between Jimmy Savile and Prince Charles), B to C, C to D, and D to A, etc. It was all rather far-fetched.

But that led me to look up Cameron’s career. There is a Wikipedia article here:

Bear in mind, when reading it, that it was probably written by himself or his mates or his personal publicist.

I have said on numerous occasions that I did not understand how Cameron appeared from nowhere, strutted about on the stage at a Conservative Party Conference, reciting his learned-by-heart speech, and become Leader of the Tory Party. Where did he come from? How did that happen? I’ve never been particularly motivated to try to find out the facts before now. My reason now is due to his championing of ‘Remain’ in the EU along with his silence about ecigs being included in the TOBACCO products directive. He must surely be aware that the only reason that we have the mess of potage that is Article 2o of the TPD (virtually banning ecigs) is because the junior Minister of Health, Anna Soubry, was totally ignorant that such an Article existed. The fact is that she did not give a shit about Article 20, nor did her boss, the Secretary of State for Health, nor did his boss,  the PM, Cameron.

Cutting a long story short, the immensely rich and privileged ‘David William Donald Cameron’ (what’s in a name? David: Welsh, William: English, Donald: Scottish) moved effortlessly from Eton to Oxford Uni.

“In October 1985, Cameron began his Bachelor of Arts course in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Brasenose College, Oxford.”

According to the Wikipedia article (written by whoever), Cameron was a whiz at economics. Strange that, since ‘Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE)’ is an immensely wide subject. To become an ‘expert’ in philosophy, and an ‘expert’ in politics, and an ‘expert’ in economics takes some doing. Perhaps the wealth of the Camerons imbued our David with superhuman intellectual abilities.

From Oxford Uni, Dave went into the Tory Party research department, or something like that. The position is not clear. Let’s say that he must have been really, really brilliant because he was soon advising Ministers of the Crown. Such brilliance!

He moved then into commerce. He became ‘Director of Corporate Affairs’ for a TV company called ‘Carlton Communications’. What is a ‘Director of Corporate Affairs’? It sounds like his job was to look after ‘the body’ of the corporation. Bearing in mind his high up links to the Tory Party, it sounds like his job was to lobby the Tories, and thus gain advantages for ‘the body’ of Carlton. Maybe he did a wonderful job. We do not know.

Then he decided to become an MP. Easy-peasy. After a couple of failures, he succeeded in the year 2000 and became the MP for Witney in Oxfordshire, a safe Tory seat. Between 2000 and 2005, he had some vague shadow, junior positions in opposition.

Then, in 2005, HE STOOD FOR THE TORY LEADERSHIP AND WON! So, this person, who just happened to be stupendously wealthy, and who was a ‘whiz’ at economics, just happened to throw his hat into the ring, with almost no experience of Government or Parliament, and strutted away with the Prize.

What does the above show? It shows that the ability to learn speeches off-by-heart is paramount, and to be ‘the chosen one’. Who does the choosing? Who chose Cameron to be the ‘chosen one’? Who permitted him to strut around on the stage giving his learned-off-by-heart speech?

Is it reasonable to say that the same people are now prompting him to champion the Elite in Brussels? Cameron was born into the Elite. He wants to ‘Remain’ in the Elite.

What ought to be obvious is that the EU is no different from any other Ruling Class, whether it be aristocracy or merit. Whatever the system, the real workers are poorly rewarded while the ‘aristocrats’ cream off the riches.

The UN, WHO, IPCC, etc have been designed precisely to keep the poorest people poor, while slightly improving their situation. Meanwhile, the richest people get richer and richer.

Only a few people own the whole world.


A Rant Against Force


It’s midnight, and I am about to write a post to while away a couple of hours until bedtime. But I have no idea what to write about. Let’s just see what comes into my mind. No title for this post as yet.

I mentioned the Lords debate in committee about e-cigs in my last post. I read a transcript first, but I watched a video of the proceedings this evening. It was a little over an hour long. Two or three of the Lords said that they had themselves stopped smoking cigs via ecigs when other methods had not worked. What struck me, as I watched, was that these two or three peers were silver haired old men. How had they survived smoking tobacco for so long? None of them seemed to be ailing in any way. To what do they put down their survival into old age when the should have been killed off by smoking years ago?

One peer actually had the temerity to question the ill-treatment of smokers. I’m surprised that he was not booed.

One peer mentioned Subry MP and her belief that ecigs had been dropped from the TPD. The interesting thing is that she had already signed the UK up for it. Think about that. At the moment that she signed, she committed the UK to enacting a law which she knew nothing about. If she did not know about Article 20, it is reasonable to assume that she did not know anything about the rest of it either, apart perhaps from some generalised info which Black gave her. Why didn’t the PM say, “This will not do!” and recall Soubry’s vote and demand a fresh meeting of that EU committee? Why is Black still employed by the Health Dept?

How is it possible for such a mess of a directive to be bludgeoned through and enacted into law on the say-so of a junior minister who signed a document which she had not read?

The Lords Minister who responded in the debate trotted out the same arguments that ASH has just done – ‘the TPD Article 20 is not so bad really. It bans TV advertising of ecigs, but doesn’t stop vape shops or the internet from talking about vape products. We have to think about non-smokers and children being persuaded to start vaping’ and such drivel. The committee had a good giggle when the Minister said that enforcement would be ‘Italian style rather than British style’. Yes, if you say so, Minster.


What is missing from all these discussions is time-scales. One of the first things that come into my mind when some mentions ‘long term harm’ is: “What length of time are you talking about? Thirty years? Fifty years? One hundred years? Five hundred years?”  It is implicit in the College of Physicians’ and Public Health England’s statements that ecig vaping is 95% less dangerous than smoking tobacco that any harm of significance will take around 100 times longer to appear than smoking harm does. Thus, if it takes 30 years for smoking harm to appear, it will take 3,000 years for vaping harm to appear in an individual person.

I do not apologise for showing the graph once again:


That graph is my expanded version of Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ graph. I don’t want to go into length explanations. The original was a ‘survival’ graph, but I turned it upside down and converted it into a ‘non-survival’ graph. What is important to bear in mind is that the figures used to draw the graph were AVERAGES.

According to Doll, the doctors, ON AVERAGE started smoking at age 19-ish. So you can see that 2o years AT LEAST passed before any of the smoking doctors started to die for whatever reason. At age 45, some non-smoking doctors started to die for whatever reason. After some 40 years of smoking (at age 60), some 20% of heavy smoking doctors had died and some 10% of non-smoking doctors had died.

Now, let us substitute vaping for smoking. How would that graph look? Would there be ‘heavy’ vapers, ‘moderate’ vapers, ‘light’ vapers and non-vapers? How could we work out what might happen?

The evidence is already there for all to see. In cigarettes, there are thousands of chemicals of which many are toxic. According to Tobacco Control Zealots, the ‘dose’ of those toxins in cigs is enough to kill people after some 40 years of exposure, but the effect depends upon how much has been smoked over that 40 years.

What are the toxins in ecig vapour? Those that have been discovered are few and in tiny amounts, so the ‘doses’ are also tiny. How much longer then would a vaper have to vape before damage became evident?

That is crucial, but no one ever mentions it. Not one single word, in that Lords debate, mentioned time-scales. Will a person who vapes die ten years prematurely when he is 300 or 3000 years old?

It is not acceptable that the “Experts”, who know this very well, can get away with misinformation about possible dangers in vaping. “We do not know” is a deliberate lie, since the toxicology measurements of ecig liquid and vapour indicate the almost total absence of toxins.


What are we to conclude from all these lies being promulgated by the UN, WHO, EU and our own Government? It MUST be that the UN etc have a motive which they do not want to reveal. I mentioned this only a couple of weeks ago. It is all about ‘SUSTAINABILITY’. The FCTC is a product of sustainability. The millions of hectares devoted to growing tobacco plants must be destroyed. It is not acceptable that those millions of hectares should continue to be used to grow tobacco plants to feed the ecig liquid industry with nicotine. So, The Very Top Elite, in the UN, dictate to the WHO what must be done (destroy tobacco companies) to release those millions of hectares. The same applies to sugar plantations, vine plantations, hop plantations. All must be destroyed. The way to do it is through HEALTH.

Do Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Clinton, Trump, etc understand to what extent they are being manipulated? Or are they very much ‘in the know’ and part of the manipulation? I’ll never forget how Cameron came from nowhere, strutted about on stage at the Tory Conference, and became leader of the Tory party from nowhere. At least Corbin has been an MP for a long time.

The same time-scale problem applies to SHS. If actual smoking takes some 40 years to have any significant effect, what is the time-scale for SHS? There is none because no one had dared the work it out. Where were the tobacco companies in this respect? There was the Enstrom and Kabat study. It was initially funded by the USA equivalent of CRUK, but when the results were not favourable to that organisation, it withdrew funding. Where else could E and K get funding to finish the study other than from tobacco companies? Who has the money? Who is prepared to pay? Would ASH be prepared to pay?

The support from Cameron and The Elite Establishment for the EU stinks to high heaven of Empire building. From a physical defence point of view, NATO is sufficient. Not much else matters. Greece, Italy, Turkey can protect their borders. It is very simple. Whoever arrives can be transported back where they came from. The boats of the transporters can be dragged out to sea and sunk. It is so, so simple. Perhaps women and children could be accepted as refugees, but not young men. Such refugees must accept what they are given, be thankful and wait until they can return to their homeland. There is plenty of history about how people fled from war-zones, but little about how they returned after the war was over.


Meanwhile, in the USA, Trump goes from strength to strength. The political strangle-hold is being broken. When will people in the UK understand that the division into Labour and Tory is deliberate? That the Ruling Class has devised it to be so? At least Corbin has bucked the Ruling Class. If only he would buck the accepted right of the ruling class to dictate how people decide what pleasures they wish to enjoy, then he would get my interest.

These people are such dummies! There are proper statisticians who can investigate the claims of epidemiologists. Epidemiologists are not very good statisticians. ASH ET AL are even worse. For example, ASH ET AL commissioned a survey asking vapers what strength of nicotine they used. The AVERAGE was less than 20 mg/ml. So what? It is the heaviest smokers who require higher levels of nicotine, and not light smokers. Also, those smokers who have been smoking ‘heavily’ for a long time are the people who are most at risk, as Doll’s Study showed. So why did ASH support the TPD?

You have to think around the subject to understand. ASH is nothing. It is a publicity stunt. If it disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice. Its purpose is just to promote publicity stunts. That is all it exists for. I do not understand why anyone takes any notice of ASH at all. ASH has no substance. It does no research; it does no science about tobacco or ecigs or anything; it is just verbal. It talks. Who pays for it? Ah! The National Lottery gave ASH £500,000 not long ago.

Corruption is rife, but most especially in the UN, WHO, EU. Our Government, here in the UK, should put an end to the corruption. That idea is PARAMOUNT, even it the vote is ‘to remain’. Such a vote enables Cameron et al to rip the EU apart.

But has Cameron either the nerve or intent to rip the EU apart? He would have to stop paying for the corruption. He would have to stop the lobbying.


Oddly enough, smokers cannot be any worse off whichever way Brexit goes. For us, it doesn’t matter that much. I shall vote LEAVE, simply because I hate FORCE being used to direct our lives. FORCE comes in many forms. Taxation of tobacco products is FORCE.



“How Do You Plead?” “Guilty, Mi Lud”


My last post brought out some interesting comments, not least of which was the idea of ‘GUILT’.

I post a lot about the iniquities of tobacco control, which means that I spend quite a lot of my time thinking about those iniquities. That MUST be the case, otherwise I would not be able to post about those iniquities. But, in a vague sort of way, at the back of my mind is the idea that perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps Cameron et al are right when they ban smoking in cars when children are present, and perhaps they are right when they legislate to make all cigarette packs look precisely the same, and to portray medical porn over most of the package. Perhaps they are right. Perhaps ‘Medical Experts’ and ‘Academics’ are right to condemn smoking, and perhaps they are right to use their expertise in propaganda to deter ‘children’ from taking up the pleasure of smoking, drinking and eating tasty stuff.

Intellectually, I know that they do not apply those restrictions to themselves. Why else would Glantz be so fat? Surely, as a ‘model’, he should be slim and fit? His pronouncements on the ill effects of smoking should surely affect also the ill effects of over-eating, which he himself indulges in.

Does he feel guilty? Should he not walk around, seeing slim people, and not feel a tremendous guilt that he will eventually get Type 2 Diabetes and afflict the general population with massive costs? The fat bastard! He will, eventually, cost us all a fortune. If it was on the NHS, it would be via general taxation. In the USA, it would be via increased health insurance premiums. Fat bastard!


In my own experience, thinking so much about the iniquities of tobacco control, along with the idea that the Zealots might possibly be right, has indeed led me into a state where I feel guilt. When I exit the pub and stand in the doorway having a puff, I have a feeling of panic if a couple of strangers approach. The feeling of panic is extremely slight, but ‘panic’ is the right word. What will they do? Will they wave their hands and cough? Is there a possibility that they will shout at me? Might I be physically attacked? I do not know, and so I tense up a little. If I am walking along the street smoking, and another person appears walking on the same side who is going to pass me, will he/she start shouting about litter and SHS? I do not know, and so I tense up a little.

It is all very weird. For example, a neighbour has stencilled a dog shaped picture on the pavement outside his home. Beneath the picture is the legend, “Pick it up!” We have no dog, but we look after our daughter’s dog while she is at work. Therefore, we are a target of the pic and the legend. Note that word: TARGET. The person who painted the pic and wrote the legend feels really good, and has no responsibility whatsoever. But that person has inflicted his/her guilt upon others. For be in no doubt – the reason that people paint these pics is from a feeling of guilt of their own, or for their own convenience. I could imagine the person who lived at that house treading in a lump of dog poo, shouting, “Shit!”, going inside and making a stencil and painting the pic and legend onto the pavement. But can we all paint pics and legends onto the pavement? Is there a ‘Banksie’ around to paint graffiti all over the pavements? Why should not children enjoy themselves by spray-painting pretty pictures all over the pavements?

But my point is that the presence of the dog-poo pic arouses feelings of guilt even in people who do not have a dog.

I should imagine that non-smokers get a feeling of guilt when they see ‘NO SMOKING’ signs on shop doors.

Is it any wonder that Cameron et al enacted the tobacco packaging laws and ‘not smoking in cars’ laws? For politicians, the feelings of irrational guilt must be overwhelming.

Thus, you can see how it came to pass that our Government, without Parliamentary scrutiny, is about to virtually destroy the vaping industry. Anna Soubry MP, a girl who was parachuted into a safe constituency, and became a junior minister called ‘Health’, did not know that she had to talk to a commons committee before committing the UK to some EU decision. She committed the UK to the E-cig provisions of the TPD whilst believing that there were no E-cig provisions in it. As a consequence, the TPD, in its entirety, will be bludgeoned into law without even a debate in Parliament. There was a ‘discussion’ in the House of Lords in the last few days, in which the failure of Soubry MP was mentioned, but not pursued. For heavens sake! How can a treaty signed by a minister who does not know what is in the treaty, have any force? It is a nonsense! Sign away the crown jewels? Why not? Give Gibraltar to Spain? Why not? Give the Falklands to Argentina? Why not? Just ignorance and inexperience of a junior minister is enough to create a World War – unless her betters countermand it.

That did not happen. Why? It can only be that Cameron et al did not give a shit about the tobacco directive. To them, the top-most Elite in the world, such things are beneath them. Such things are of no significance whatsoever. Tobacco use is of no importance whatsoever. What is important to that Elite is the use of land to grow tobacco plants. World-wide, vast areas of land are used to grow tobacco plants. That is what the UN, and THE ELITE, want to stop. All the health scares about smoking are about the use of arable land. Only EDIBLE crops should be grown on arable land – and possibly medicinal crops.

War on drugs? No opium crops; no crops from which cocaine can be extracted.

War on alcohol? No vineyards. War on whiskey? No barley crops.

Land freed to grow carrots.


The WAR AGAINST VAPERS shows only how weak politicians are. Sucking on an ecig, and enjoying the taste, is little different from sucking on a lollipop. I smoke. What that means is that I ‘suck’ on a tobacco cig. Babies suck on teats;  whiskey drinkers suck up tiny amounts of whiskey; everyone sucks up stuff which they dare not or cannot drink. Heavens! We suck hot tea. We do not drink it. We describe that sucking as  ‘sipping’, but it is the same thing.


It is perfectly obvious that Cameron et al have let the population of the UK down. It isn’t just NOW. It is historical. Cameron et al have been in power for several years. They could have de-funded the EU years ago, but they were cowards, and continued to pour billions of pounds into a corrupt, unaccountable, undemocratic, elitist, wasteful, snail-like, EMPIRE.

The mind boggles that the worthy idea that European Nations should become closer has been so corrupted. Damn it! It is only in the last 100 years that it has been put about that, in their turn, each nation is ugly. As an Englishman, I see all French people as lovely, and so Belgians and Chechs and Spaniards. That has always been so – until The Elite poison EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING.

A MASSIVE tool that the Elite use is ‘guilt’, or, more properly, a feeling of guilt.

The weird thing is that we elect our representatives to Parliament precisely to counter such propaganda, and not to sustain it. For some reason that I cannot fathom, Cameron et al want chaos since it is perfectly obvious that the EU is just too slow to respond.

I must to bed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 135 other followers