Mallorca was hot – very hot. Thank heaven I stopped all this sunbathing malarkey many years ago. Also, thankfully, my room was blessed with a good air-conditioning system; even with the balcony door open, the system still blew cool air into the room. Normally, if you are on your own and paying the basic price for your room, they allocate you a room overlooking garages and shops, etc, but on this occasion they gave me a pleasantly situated room. (Not that the view matters to me) Normally, I don’t even bother taking snaps, but I did on this occasion. Go on then….:
It was a pleasant view to have while reading a thriller.
But I do like hot weather – in the shade. My routine was:
9.30 am: Breakfast.
10.30 am: Back to bed till midday.
12 pm: Read and cups of tea on balcony.
1 pm: Stroll along ‘prom’ and have coffee somewhere.
2 pm: Round to fav bar for lunch, beers and more reading.
5 pm: Back to hotel, more tea and more reading on balcony.
6.30 pm: Snooze.
7.30 pm: Shower and dinner.
9 pm: Back to room, more tea and more reading on balcony.
10 pm: Back to fav bar, chess on electronic chess set. Coffee and one pint.
12 am: Round to fav night club, sit outside playing more chess.
3 am (?): To bed.
Boring, I know, but it surprising how many yoofs are interested in what you are doing. One lad asked for a game, bragging that he was good at chess at his school. It turned out that he hardly knew how the pieces moved. He went off after a few minutes. The second one also bragged about his ability. At least he knew the moves, but he was no good at the game. He too lost heart when I started to remove his pieces from the board systematically. Three Swiss lads joined me one night. They all spoke really good English. One volunteered for a game without bragging and he played well. When I sneaked one of his castles, he too lost heart a bit and off they went. The final party was the best player. He knew about ‘controlling the centre of the board’. That game was quite a tussle, but his mates eventually took him away. We both agreed that the game was in a tight situation, but I seemed to be in the stronger position since my three best pieces, two bishops and the queen were all ‘looking at’ his king, whereas his best pieces were somewhat scattered. But anything could have happened.
It may not seem fun to readers, but, when you think about it, there I was, listening to the disco music, playing a game I enjoy, drinking beer and enjoying tobacco, and watching the silliness of the ‘children and young people’ – those sub-humans that tobacco control wish to ‘take care of’. Believe me, those ‘children and young people’ do not need the likes of Arnott et al to look after them! They are more damned savvy than Arnott has ever been.
The important thing is that my outings gave me a chance to observe the youth at close quarters. There was loads of good humour and no trouble at all. I saw only a couple of lads who were a little the worse for wear, even at 3 am.
My chief interest, of course, is smoking habits. I saw little change. As many, if not more of them were smoking. They did so blatantly, with no obvious feelings of shame.
I just have a feeling…..
I have a feeling that, unlike us old-timers, they do not give a toss about smoking indoors. I don’t mean that ‘they have come to terms’ with the indoor bans. I mean that they just do not care. In England, the indoor ban has been in operation since 2007, eight years ago. Many of these youths will have been just young teens at that time. They just don’t care about indoor bans. They just don’t go indoors. That particular disco used to be be packed. Now it is half empty, and, as far as I can see, they go inside to dance around for a while and then exit again. They don’t seem to bother drinking inside. They dance around, get a drink and leave to place to sit outside, drinking and smoking. Body-language says a lot – for example, sitting down, getting out a pack of fags and chucking them on the table. That’s what I mean about’no shame’. In the UK, in our weather, well ….. what is the point of going to pubs? Is it any wonder that pubs have been closing in droves?
A couple of other things.
I noticed a much more pronounced use of ecigs. Curiously, people were not using them indoors. But perhaps not ‘curiously’. Very few people seemed to be indoors. Why should vapers go indoors when the places are empty? My impression was that, largely, it was the older people who were using ecigs, but not always by any means. I didn’t see anyone using a cig-alike. All were at least second generation. The users were more or less split evenly between men and women.
Here is an interesting thing. One venue had gone big on shisha. It was a pub/music venue which I passed regularly. The last time I passed it, I made a special point of counting the devices. There were eight at least. Here is a pic which resembles those I saw:
I saw another bar with one. I could only see one, but there may have been more.
A couple of times, I saw youths using them. It seems that individuals took turns to puff.
Is it any wonder that tobacco control is tearing its hair out? Its carefully laid plans are beginning to fall apart. The College of Physicians (owners of ASH) is a loggerheads with the British Medical Assn over ecigs. That battle is a bit weird. The BMA want ecigs banned but the RCP want them to be allowed. But wait…. Do not be too overjoyed. What the RCP actually wants is control of ecigs. Don’t be fooled. They may be nasty bastards, but they are clever. Whereas the BMA just want tobacco, and anything that looks like smoking, prohibited, the RCP want legal regulations so that they can dictate what they are, what they contain, and what they cost. Altruism forms no part of their thinking. I find it quite amusing that while ASH ET AL has got its ban on smoking in cars when youths are present, those very youths are puffing away on shishas! OK – they may or may not be 18 or over. Who knows or cares? Certainly, the police in Mallorca have far more to concern themselves with than youths puffing on shisha pipes.
It seems to me that the control, which Tobacco Control have always envisaged as being self-perpetuating, is breaking down. They got publicans to accept the role of unpaid law enforcement officers by the ruse of swingeing fines if they did not, but that plan too has not yet run its course. It’s a pity that tobacco companies did not see fit to financially support those few publicans who refused to become unpaid, untrained policemen. Let’s face it; people like Hogan did not encourage smoking in their pubs – they merely refused to use force to stop it.
It is also noticeable that the Charlatans never ever put themselves at risk. They never do anything at all. They use our money to pay for surveys; they use our money to pay for press release publications; they use our money to pay for massively more customs officers, required to chase smugglers of tobacco products, and, of course, they use our money to pay themselves.
What is most disappointing is the gullibility of politicians. They must have observed that ASH ET AL never actually do anything at all. They do not parade with placards; they do not arrest people; they do nothing at all. But it is worse than that; our money spent by ASH ET AL is actually doing immense damage, both physically and mentally. I use the phrase ‘physically and mentally’ as shorthand for physical events such as pub closures and mental events such as making the suffering of the mentally ill worse. People who stand in pulpits and issue instructions, while themselves doing nothing, should always be viewed with the greatest suspicion. Why do politicians take any notice of them?
Let’s face it. Smokers are today’s slaves. They work a lot of their time for nothing since the State takes lots of their money in exorbitant taxes. The poorer that a smoker is, the more that he is a slave. Modern day slavery is real and is justified by the puritans on the grounds that the poor, en masse, deserve what they get since they are weak, promiscuous, diseased sub-humans. Pleasures are not for them. If taxes on beer and cigs are raised high enough, then this scum will fall in line and the statistics will improve no end.
And yet…….. Our youth is not stupid. I heard an artiste singing “Those were the days” while I was away. The chorus is:
Those were the days my friend.
We thought they’d never end.
We’d sing and dance forever and a day.
We’d live the life we choose.
We’d fight and never lose.
For we were young and sure to have our way.
La la la la…
And that is precisely what is happening.
The site administrator is away for a week or so. No blogging then for the next few days. I’m looking forward to relaxing. The less I do, the better.
Can “Public Health” ever stop?
I’m not really talking about the Zealots themselves who are paid handsomely, or all the students who are at university taking ‘public health’ courses, or the employees of ASH ET AL, or the hand-waving tut-tutters. I’m talking about the whole edifice – it is a monstrous malignant cancer pretending to be benign. It has spread throughout the body politic, metastasising as it spread.
It cannot stop itself, but it can be stopped. Money is its blood supply. Cut the blood supply and the cancer will die. The trouble is, how to cut the blood supply to the cancer without cutting the blood supply to the body politic.
I’m off on my hols. I’ll leave you with it…..
This needs to be a short post because I go on holiday in the early hours of Tuesday. I have a lot to do tomorrow in preparation. So, I hope that this post will not be rambling.
‘Authority’ takes many forms. For example, I have a chart which shows how to cure tobacco. It says (put briefly) that the leaves collected from the plants should be stacked in a barn in a certain way, and that fires should be used to raise the temperature inside he barn to about 37C. As a result, the leaves will ferment and turn starches into sugars, and go yellow. But (OMG!), it is not as simple as that. No. Academics and Experts got involved. And “Universities”. These people, who had never in their lives worked in tobacco, produced charts and measurements and decreed ‘THE WAY TO DO IT’. They wrote books.
I should imagine that farmers and curers of tobacco did not give a shit what Professor and Experts said. They would have gone on doing what they know works – open some ventilation slats if the temp/humidity is too high and close them if too low. Raise the temp if too low and cool it down if too high.
What is critical to understand is that not all the crop being cured would turn out to be perfect. That is why tobacco was graded. Curers knew what would be considered to be ‘Class A’ tobacco, ‘Class B’, tobacco and so on. Buyers checked the ‘Class’ which were provided in bales by Growers. There was nothing secretive about it. The various ‘Classes’ had their prices.
It is almost certain that Tobacco Control has obliterated any sort of care over the quality of tobacco. If that is true, then Tobacco Control might well be responsible for the presence of excessive toxins in tobacco company products. I mean, why should tobacco companies bother about quality when the “professors and experts” say that quality of tobacco has no importance? It is as though Banana Control said that the straightness of bananas was more important than the taste.
The ‘authorities’ which say that the straightness of bananas is more important than the taste can be taken down. I shall explain how.
Years ago, I went with seven other people to play golf in Scotland over a long weekend. One of the courses that we played was the ‘Kings’ course at St Andrews. It is a bloody tricky course, not much different to the Old Course. Anyway, I got a bit pissed that night and decided to take a walk in the fresh air. It was about 11 pm and there was still some light in the sky. I walked up the 1st hole and crossed to the 18th tee. I looked down the 18th and went “Wow!” in my mind. It was wonderful to observe.
Unfortunately, about the same time, I became desperate for a pee. Well, you tell me, what better place to make ‘your mark’ but on the Championship Tee of the 18th hole of the Old Course? The competition started about two weeks later, but I failed to see, on the TV, a brown mark where I piddled.
TAKING DOWN AUTHORITY.
There must come a time when ‘professorial’ authority will collapse. There must come a time when it will be seen that these people have no experience in the world in which they claim ‘expertise’. They may have read books, and they may have assessed the actual statistics produced by other incompetents, but they have no personal experience whatsoever. Would you trust these ‘Academics’ to declare the aircraft upon which you are about to fly 1000 miles to be safe? How could they know? Well, perhaps, they could do a study, and they could arrive a the conclusion that two incidents occurred at Manchester as compared with Birmingham, but because Manchester is twice as big as Birmingham, then that incident is only half an incident.
The incident of my pissing on the Championship Tee of the 18th at St Andrews is only a tiny bit of what smokers can achieve if they wish to. But it needs to be positive and not negative. Thus, smokers could create a bank account to receive charitable contributions from smokers to McMillan. At least that charity has not vilified smokers to the best of my knowledge.
So, Yes, it is possible that a SMOKER CHARITY could be created. How odd is it that Tobacco Companies did not create such a charity decades ago? Umm…. Perhaps we should think again. Perhaps they could not. Perhaps their ‘business model’ was entirely as described by Tobacco Control, and was correct as described. Perhaps, in Tobacco Companies, anyone who said, “There is something wrong” was sacked. We do not know.
What has become obvious to me is that the FCTC has little to do with health. It has more to do with destroying tobacco companies, and that is all.
‘Taking Down Authority’ requires millions of disobediences. Authority only has strength because of willingness to obey. It was not the will of smokers which was hit by the smoking ban, it was the WILL of pub owners and others. It was their WILL which was co-opted to punish smokers and they complied willingly. I remember the last night of the publicans at my local. They had given up because they could not make it pay. I was a rebel. On that night, which was a bit of a party, at the very last thing, I deliberately took out a cig and lit it. Bearing in mind that it was there very last night, would you not think that they might have ignored it, or given me an ashtray? NO!! One of the sisters strived valiantly to grab the cig from my mouth! But it was their last night! No way was it possible for the police to target that place!
Is it any wonder that those sisters could not make a go of the pub?
To ‘take down authority’, you need to want to. I don’t think that The People of the UK are anywhere near doing so at the moment, as witnessed by the publicans’ willingness to be thugs. When publicans accept a dictat to chuck their best customers out of their pubs by force, they accepted that they were State apparatchiks.
What more needs to be said? It is simple. Someone, somewhere need only open a bar for smokers, staffed by smokers. A Tobacco Company ought to facilitate it, if only to call out the frenzied fanatics. No violence is needed, even though precipitated by TC. Indeed, the bar need not actually open for business!
So TAKING DOWN AUTHORITY is easy enough by disobedience. But there is another strata. It is about making politicians responsible, personally, for the consequences of their actions. They cannot any longer be allowed to make laws and then walk away.
‘Nothing’ means non-existence. It is only possible to postulate non-existence if there is existence. I doubt that there are many humans who believe that they do not exist.
What is non-existence? Is SPACE an example of ‘nothing’? Is there ‘nothing’ between Earth and the Moon? If so, why are the Earth and the Moon separated? The Space between the two must be ‘A THING’.
Why is it taking so long for physicists to declare what SPACE is? Why have they been avoiding that subject for decades? Einstein paved the way, but was forced to avoid that problem because he would have been ridiculed. Why is it that, a century later, physicists are still avoiding that question?
WHAT IS SPACE?
Science has become pseudo-science for the most part. There is still ‘true’ science. For example, true science plotted the journey of the probe which reached Pluto. True science landed a probe on an asteroid. Meanwhile, back on Earth, ‘scientific studies’ are proving that miasmas (SHS) are devastating whole populations of youths. Youths are dropping like flies from ecig vapour, SHS, THS, and …..?
WHAT IS SPACE?
Perhaps we should demand to know how much of taxpayers’ money is NOT being spent upon that absolutely critical question.
We have been having a tidy up. ‘Junk accumulates to fill the space available to it’. Among the junk in a spare bedroom was a box of photos. There are hundreds of them. Some are in albums, some in packets and some just loose. Few of them belong to the wife and I. Most of them belong to the daughters. How they came to be in our house is a legacy from the past – times when they all lived at home before they flew the nest. Among many, many other things, they need to be sorted out and, to a certain extent, chucked out. It isn’t a matter of wholesale destruction of memories, it is a matter of not keeping half a dozen copies of the same scene. One of our sets of photos is an album devoted to our first cruise. Herself won a cruise for two on The Canberra! The photos are in an album. Few of them are repetitions. That was 1984 – 30 years ago. I was surprised to see how slightly handsome I was then. (Readers should tolerate my faint praise of myself, please. Herself was also quite pretty, despite the fact that the MS had already shown itself) There are also photos of our second cruise (paid for by ourselves) two years later, also on the Canberra. There’s a stack of photos of family holidays going back to the 1970s, and lodes of photos taken at our homes over the years. I think that some of them date from the late 1960s, but I haven’t looked at them all.
There is a point.
In those old photos, we were all very, very jolly. Not a care in the world. We were drinking, smoking, posing, dressing up, being silly. Not a care in the world. And, when you think back 30 – 40 years, you can recall that hardly anyone was scared.
Something happened. Somehow, fear was introduced into our lives.
In the late 1950s, post-war austerity was gradually relaxed. Ordinary people began to be able to afford telephones, TVs and cars. In the 1960s, that process accelerated. PM McMillan said, “You’ve never had it so good”, and he was right. True, there were trouble spots in the world, such as the Malaya emergency as it was called; there was the Mau Mau in Africa, and there was the Korean war, but those problems were reasonably contained. What was important was that Europe was at peace, despite communism in the East. The balance of power, in the form of nuclear weapons, ensured that the lines drawn between the communist East and the ‘Free’ West stayed firm.
And yet, despite peace and safety, fear was introduced into our lives.
I can’t remember the chronology, but it does not matter. There came into our lives REGULATIONS which governed the actions of millions of people. Motorcyclists were told to wear crash helmets – for their own good. If they did not, they would be punished. Motorists and their passengers were told to wear seatbelts – for their own good. If they didn’t, they would be punished. But at least those laws were black and white – either you did or did not wear a crash helmet or wear a seatbelt. What really threw the cat among the pigeons was the drink/driving law. Here is the current law:
“In England and Wales, the alcohol limit for drivers is 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath or 107 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of urine. In most other European countries, the limit is less, usually 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood“
Can you see the problem? I’m sure that you can. The problem is that you have no way of knowing whether or not you are over the limit. Thus fear of the unknown was created.
I don’t know if that ‘fear of the unknown’ was deliberately created, but I do know that it was deliberately used to create a fear of being caught committing a crime which you did not know that you were committing. That was entirely deliberate. Who among us, at the time, would not have bought a cheap personal breathalyser had they been available? It ought not to have been difficult to produce something similar to litmus paper which would change colour depending upon how much alcohol was in your breath. A tube you blow into for X length of time; unscrew the collector and check the colour. Green is OK, blue is iffy and red is a no-no. Even today, as far as I know, there is no such device.
‘Fear of the unknown’ has been refined over the decades. When we went on our cruise in 1984, no one checked our handbags or luggage. No one was afraid. When herself and I first started going to Mallorca, about 15 years ago, checks on our hand baggage were minimal if at all. There was no fear. Now, fear is palpable. Fear of lighting a cig, fear of having a couple of beers, fear of having something in your hand luggage which offends some regulation which you do not know exists. Fear of being searched and condemned because you have a cig lighter in your pocket. Fear of carrying a 500 ml bottle of water. And when you get on board the aircraft, there are announcements. “Only alcoholic drinks bought on this aircraft may be consumed” Really? Why? “Ecigs are not permitted” Really? Why? It would be interesting to see what would happen legally if an airline permitted smoking in the rear seats once the aircraft was outside UK jurisdiction. The same goes for ships. Why are these airline and ship companies so afraid?
‘Fear of the unknown’ has been taken to the absolute extreme when it comes to ecigs and SHS. This is especially obvious when smoking bans are extended to the outdoors as is happening in Australia here and now, and is being promoted ‘voluntarily’ in some parts of the UK. The smoking ban in the air over hospital grounds is a case in point. Without the fear of SHS, people supporting such bans, especially fanatical doctors and academics, would be questioned as to their mental health, and as to whether or not they were mentally capable of doing their jobs properly. What use is an oncologist who believes in miasmas and witchcraft?
Having said all that, the real fault lies with our politicians. I really do not understand how so many of them are suckers for the latest frightening fad. Why are they even the slightest bit inclined to even recognise the idea of minimum pricing of alcohol? That too is a product of ‘fear of the unknown’. The hysteria about obesity is based upon ‘fear of the unknown’ – how many fatties will actually get diabetes because they are fat? I cannot help but feel that statistics are deliberately being manipulated. I don’t mean that, say, the ONS (national statistics) or hospitals are counting things wrongly. I mean that the fact, say, that lots of diabetics who appear in hospitals are fat does not mean that fatness is the cause of the diabetes. If that were so, then the question would have to be answered as to why so few fatties got diabetes.
Which reminds me of my last conversation with my dentist.
He started it. He said that he was still addicted to nicotine, and, even though he had given up smoking years ago, he was still inclined to scrounge a fag occasionally at the pub. For this reason, he carried nicotine lozenges with him. He showed me a pack which he had in his pocket at the time. I asked him, ‘did he see many incidents of mouth problems’? He said, sucking in his breath, ‘Yes – a lot’. I was in the dentist’s chair, at his mercy, and so I did not push it, but I know that the stats show that, on average, any particular dentist will only see a fatal cancer from any situ in the mouth every 20 years. Perhaps he was talking about brown-coloured teeth. Titter, titter. One of the great things about seeing these ancient photos is seeing how lovely your teeth were 30 – 40 years ago!
It annoys me very much that our elected representatives, who are supposed to protect us, have mostly allied themselves with those who persecute us by promulgating ‘fear of the unknown’. You see, if there is a statistical chance (‘relative risks’) that SHS might just possibly, sometimes or occasionally, possibly, just make you sneeze, then venturing into the sea, no matter how good a swimmer you are, even if you just paddle, is far too dangerous, since there are unknown dangers in the sea. It follows that all shipping should cease, in case a seaman should fall into the sea.
‘Fear of the unknown’ is a modern fear. and it is very, very recent. In the not so distant past, fear of epidemics of contagious diseases was real. That is, the diseases were real. Now, the diseases are not real. They are inferred. They will catch up with you sometime in the future – maybe or maybe not. Well, like 5% maybe and 95% maybe not. But ‘fear of the unknown’ dictates that one should assume oneself to likely be one of the 5% rather than one of the 95%.
The crazy thing about these statistical assumptions is this:
“You must not cross a road, even if you can see that there is no traffic on the road, because there is a statistical possibility that a motor vehicle might ‘energise’ and knock you down and kill you. Even worse is the possibility of being only wounded, in which case you personally cause the NHS to expend lots of money. If it were not for people like you, the NHS would not need hospitals and such; it would need only academics, Public Health Experts, managers and administrators.”
‘Fear of the unknown’ costs a lot of money. If it were not for paying billions of pounds to ‘experts’ of all kinds to promote ‘fear of the unknown’, then multi-millions of pounds could be directed to worthwhile projects such as saving Greece. I do not mean paying Greece’s creditors. I mean helping Greece to get out of the Euro shackles. ‘Oversea’s Aid’ could be used for just that purpose. There is no need for us in the UK to allow the Greek people to starve. In fact, watching BBC News tonight, Cameron said that we should not interfere in the Eurozone, but, if the shit hits the fan, then we should give humanitarian aid to Greece. I wonder what would happen if ‘fear of the unknown’ was dispelled in Greece by such promises from all over the world? Is it not clear, from Cameron’s statement, that there is a well of European goodwill towards Greece? By that, I do not mean the goodwill of the 3rd Reich. If the Germans wanted their loans to be repaid, they should not have granted them so readily. In any case, how do we know that only German funds were advanced to Greece? The fact is that the money advanced to Greece came from nowhere. EU rules allowed the creation of money with ‘liability’ spread over countries in the EU, even if those countries were themselves in a mess.
It is true that Germans should not pay for the inadequacies of Greece. The Greeks should not expect to have the same level of possessions as that of Germans. On the other hand, they have benefits which are much more valuable than German loot. They have warmth, wine, tobacco, dancing and singing, tourism, ancient history, sexiness, music, good times.
Give back to the Germans what belongs to the Germans. Give back the submarines, the olympic stadia, the roads, the olive groves, the sea and the air. Whatever Germany financed belongs to Germany. Let them have it. It is theirs. Give them THE SECURITY upon which the loans were made. You see, even the most complex of lending arrangements are really quite simple. You borrow, you pay interest, you gradually, depending upon the agreement, return the principle. It is hard to believe that Greek debt is in the form of an overdraft, an unsecured personal loan or a credit card. So what was the security? What has happened, as far as I can see, is that the EU decided that Sovereign Dept needs no security. Right. That means that Greek debts are unsecured loans. If they go bad, tough. The lender must bear the losses. But what seems to have happened is that Greek banks are supposed to have been the lenders, so the failure to repay the debts amounts to them not being able to repay themselves! Even more crazy is the fact that no one seems to know how the German, Italian, Spanish, banks came to accidentally amalgamate with the Greek banks. How did that happen and who was responsible?
It is hard to see how the Greek people and their politicians can do anything other than start again. Get out of the Euro strangle-hold and become self-sufficient.
A quick post tonight. I was up early and need some sleep.
When we think back to the imposition of persecution of smokers which was the ‘general smoking ban’, what happened at the time was that there was a blitzkrieg of propaganda. The odd thing is that the blitzkrieg was not really aimed at the people. Yes, there was an MSM coordinated vilification, lead by The Mirror, which was edited by the husband of the harridan, Ms Middleton, who is in cahoots with ASH ET AL. But most other MSM papers went along for the hysterical ride.
But the main blitzkrieg was aimed at politicians. In fact, the intense bombardment was such that politicians, and especially ministers, were overwhelmed. Common Sense and scientific enquiry went out of the window.
But politics being as it is, no one dares to admit to have made tremendous mistakes. Even in this present Greek catastrophe, why is it that no one, no one, is asking why the bail-out five years ago occurred? Why were the Greek banks not sorted out then? How can the same problem arise from nowhere again without anyone noticing the rising problems in-between?
It makes no sense to believe that no one noticed the same problems arising. Eurocrats must have noticed. Why did they not act earlier? Why was the matter allowed to generate so much nuclear heat? The potential problems must have been obvious several years ago! Who decided to wait for disaster? Were Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, etc, fully aware of the impending Greek catastrophe all along?
I doubt it, but I am as certain as certain can be that the World Bank, the IMF and the EU Central Bank were fully aware. If that is true, then we can be sure that the Greek catastrophe was anticipated and is being used to further shackle The People of Europe. But is it not interesting that I used the phrase ‘The People of Europe’? For is that phrase precisely what the Eurocrats want? Smile enigmatically. The ‘People of Europe’ are not a mass. They are French, German, Italian, Greek, etc. They are not a mass of ‘Europeans’.
Before the EU, it might just have been possible for European Nations to gradually find bonds sufficient to create a federation in due course. What we have now is the creation of hubris, aka over-confidence, and that creation has wreaked disaster.
Is there a solution? I think so. The EU monstrosity must be destroyed. All its previous ‘directives’ must be re-examined and, to the extent that these ‘treaty obligations’ impinge upon the Sovereign Right of, say, England to make decisions for its people, those ‘treaty obligations’ must be abrogated. There is no other way.
Further, organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund must be absolutely WIDE OPEN to public enquiries. No more secrecy. No more obscure links to UN and EU eugenicist, fanatical, totalitarian groups. Everything absolutely clear and above board. No more antics in Moscow and places of FCTC meetings being held in secret.
The Zealots are in our schools. Titter. When has that not been so? The Zealots have ALWAYS found their paedophile way into schools. It has been going on for ages and ages. It has never worked. I suspect that the reason is that kids develop out of the restrictive thinking of parents and teachers. It has always been so. Newton would never have developed his laws of motion and gravity had he taken note of his putative parents’ scolding to stop wasting his time and give his attention to the farm, or whatever. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS. Youths rebel.
About the British Medical Assn’s Demand That People Must Be Forced to Eat Healthy. Plus a Bit About Greece and Relativity, Sort of.14/07/2015
I should imagine that most readers know about it. If not, read this:
When I said that the BMA demands, I meant it:
“Adults and children should be instructed by the Government to halve the amount of sugar they consume and eat almost twice as much pasta, potato and other fibrous foods, an official report is expected to say this week.
In a bid to tackle an epidemic of obesity and tooth decay, the Department of Health will be urged by its scientific advisers to reduce the amount of sugar allowed in the official definition of a healthy diet.”
Of course, the MBA would excuse itself by saying that it is using the word ‘instruct’ in the sense of ‘educate’ or ‘show how’, as in “Instructions for use of this kettle”. They would also point to the fact that the word ‘allow’ relates only to the definition of a healthy diet, though how you define a phrase is beyond me. You use phrases to define. You do not define phrases. In this case, ‘define’ is the wrong word. Perhaps they should have used the word ‘describe’. At least the word ‘describe’ allows for a variety of possible recommendations, whereas the word ‘define’ means ‘definite’, aka ‘certainty’.
So what does the BMA expect the Government to do? Prescribe a Manual Of Menus which are legally to be enforced in all public places, whether indoor or outdoor? Create regulations which instruct supermarkets to stock only those foods mentioned in the Manual Of Menus so that people cannot obtain unhealthy foods? Thus, no more bags of pure sugar. The sugar must be adulterated with saccharine to ‘water down’ its fattening potential.
“An epidemic of tooth decay”. I like that. Talk about ‘redefining’. Is tooth decay contagious? If not, how does tooth decay spread from one person to another so as to become an ‘epidemic’?
But we are all well aware of the deliberate manipulation of words which are not specific in our language, and deliberately so. If that were not the case, then we would have to look up a medical dictionary whenever we want to describe some minor ailment. Thus, we would not be able to say, “I have tummy ache”. We would have to describe our symptoms precisely and have tummy contents scientifically analysed in order to use the correct words. We might have to use words like ‘acute cholecystitis’ or ‘diverticulitis’. Everyone would, of course, know what we mean.
No, our language is deliberately NOT precise generally speaking. We use adjectives and other devices to narrow our meanings down. Tooth decay is not necessarily caused by sugar except in children. It has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt that tooth decay in adults is caused exclusively by smoking or passive smoking. “There is no safe level”, remember.
So what does the BMA demand regarding the Manual Of Menus and supermarket food stocks? Erm… Not a lot. No. Their answer is to tax foodstuffs. Herself likes her tea with no sugar. I like a half a teaspoon of sugar in my tea. She does not take sugar even in coffee; I like two teaspoons of sugar in my coffee. Making a correlation, her teeth are almost perfect, despite her age of 73; my teeth rotted away starting in my late teens. Ergo, the fact that she takes almost no sugar in tea or coffee is the reason for her near perfect teeth, and my rotted teeth are due to my sugar in tea and coffee. QED.
Here is a link supplied by MJM about spurious correlations:
That link supplies 19 spurious correlations, but there must be oodles of them. I personally like the correlation between the increase in the import of oranges into the UK after WW2 and the increase in divorces. Which caused which?
There are lots and lots of very precise correlations. What Hill and Doll discovered in the Doctors Study was a precise correlation between smoking and lung cancer. The heaviest smokers got most LC. Moderate smokers got less LC and light smokers even less. Non-smokers got least of all. Does that prove that smoking causes LC?
Not in the least. Doctors a century ago thought that malaria was caused by ‘bad air’ in the vicinity of swamps. It was a long time before the proper cause was discovered. Swamps were naturally places which benefited mosquitoes. Mosquitoes carried a parasite which which was injected into the veins of a person when a mosquito bit that person. It was the parasite which caused illness and death.
So let us suppose that the correlation between smoking and LC is not a spurious one, but that there is a connection. Could that connection be vaguely similar to the connection between swamps and mosquito parasites in a different way? Remember the trail – swamp, mosquito, parasite, bite. That is four steps, and it is a mistake to lump them together. They are separate steps.
So how could smoking assist in the development of LC? As far as I know, there is no scientific research into that question. But there should be since the Doctors Study showed that people could smoke for 30 years without adverse affect, and only after that lapse of time did A FEW heavy smokers start to suffer from LC when they started to get old. Why did those FEW individuals get LC but the rest of their contemporaries did not? It is not good enough to ‘rationalise’ by claiming ‘delayed effect’. Those are just unscientific words, similar to the end of increasing global temperatures being claimed to be ‘a pause’. Nature does not ‘pause’. There is no ‘delayed affect’.
Here is an interesting question. Perhaps a reader can answer it. If a person is discovered to have ‘a nodule’ (which is the word used by oncologists to describe a cancerous lump of less than one cubic centimetre), was that nodule caused by one single cell becoming a cancerous cell? By cancerous cell, I mean a cell which multiplies in a specific place and creates a mountain which, over time, blocks the organ where it is situated. EG. A lung cancer (‘tumour’, ‘lump’, ‘growth’, ‘nodule’, ‘mass’, ‘canker’, or whatever word) fills up the lung with a mass of tissue and stops the lung from functioning. Similarly, a kidney ‘canker’ would grow and grow and, eventually, split the kidney apart.
Is that how cancers work and cause death?
But what about conditions such as leukaemia? Is that similar in the sense that one defunct blood cell goes mad, reproducing like f*ck and inhibiting the production of good cells, or is it the cells in the bone marrow which go rogue and produce blood cells which bugger things up?
Relativity Theory is not difficult to understand provided that you are willing to stretch your imagination somewhat. Space is not ‘nothing’. If it was ‘nothing’ it would not exist. Space is ‘a thing’. It can be stretched, compressed, twisted and bent by gravity. Light transmitted via such a vehicle will also be stretched, compressed, twisted and bent. Or rather, light IS the stretching, compressing, twisting and bending of space on a tiny scale as compared with the affect of gravity on space. Could an object, such as a spaceship, travel faster than light? Well, no – not even remotely get near the speed of light. The reason is that space would become more and more a ‘solid’ object to anything trying to pass through it. Imagine a submarine trying to go faster and faster under the sea. The harder that the submarine pushes, the more resistant that the sea becomes. Thus, the energy that the sub needs to push the sea aside, becomes greater and greater for every extra knot of speed that is desired. Eventually, the resistance of the sea would become infinite, and an amount of energy greater than infinity would be required to overcome the resistance!
I must to bed. Tonight’s blog has been fun.
I’ve had a couple of days off blathering. The first day was due to general weariness and the second was due to the need for an early night in view of a ‘crack-of-dawn’ dental appointment (9.15 am). I was quite surprised at how many people are roaming the streets at that time. Have they no homes? Do they share beds in shifts? Judging from the vacant look in the eyes and general listlessness, I suppose that they could be schizophrenic. Which brings us to our first ‘sublime to ridiculous’ event. ‘Scientists’ are claiming that smoking causes schizophrenia. I mean….HA! HA! HA! HA!……. HA! HA! HA!….. HA! HA! OK. After WW2, the import of oranges increased. At the same time, there was an increase in divorces. Which caused which? Did the import of oranges cause the divorces, or did the increase in divorces cause the increase in the import of oranges? It is a STATISTICAL FACT, well verified, that many more schizophrenics smoke as compared with mentally stable people. An article that I have just happened upon claims that 88% of Schizos smoke: http://apt.rcpsych.org/content/6/5/327 It has always been vaguely understandable that Schizos smoke a lot because it alleviates whatever mental tensions they suffer. The exact reasons are not important here. I must admit that I admire the chutzpah of the FANATICS for coming up with the idea that, like oranges and divorces, the ’cause and effect’ can be reversed. I wonder if these ‘scientists’ are just amusing themselves? So let’s think about what they are saying. A normal, balanced individual tries a cig and likes it. He/She buys a pack of cigs and starts to enjoy tobacco regularly. There is nothing wrong mentally with that person, but, somehow, the tobacco smoke entering the body of that person alters the physical composition of his brain and turns him anti-social, dreamy, disconnected, depressed, ‘split’ in his vision of what is happening around him. And yet, from Wikipedia:
“Symptoms begin typically in young adulthood, and about 0.3–0.7% of people are affected during their lifetime.”
Funny that, is it not? “In young adulthood” means very little since it could be confused with ‘children and young people’, but even accepting the vagueness of the terms, it seems to me to be clear that the condition precedes the smoking. But, if the FANATICS wanted to cut rates of schizophrenia, then they could demand PROHIBITION, since it follows that all smokers who start smoking ‘in young adulthood’ must, to a certain extent, become schizos. For heaven’s sake, how long is this mania going to go on for? How long are our elected representatives going to persist with the persecution of smokers, drinkers, motorists, fatties, and schizophrenics? Is not the smoking ban in mental institutions not a direct, personal punishment of schizophrenics and others? And is not the putative general smoking ban on hospital grounds also a direct, personal punishment of smokers? There is no explanation other than punishment. No one, other than us, gives a shit. === It seems that the Greek Government, despite its blandishments, has capitulated. But we should not speak too soon. It seems that the Greek Parliament has accepted the propositions of Syriza to be presented to the Troika. I have not been paying much attention, being too busy, but what are the Syriza proposals? I have no idea, and no one is really saying because they must be kept under wraps, I suppose. That is not unreasonable, since it would be silly adopt a public, unchangeable position. Deals are made by ‘quid pro quo’ adjustments. But it is clear beyond doubt that Greece and similar countries must learn from the fact that they have been conned rotten. They were tempted into massive debts which have become the modern equivalent of shackles. I do not blame the Greeks for capitulating on this occasion, although they should have learnt from the last time they needed a bail-out. They should have already had an answer, no matter how cautious, to the problems of a Grexit from the Euro Zone. Thus, they must plan NOW for a Grexit soon. Getting deeper and deeper in debt, especially at the dictat of a landlord, is not on. Get the bailout and then build up reserves to bolster the Grexit. Get the fuck out when the exit is most to your advantage. One could imagine a host of people trying to get out of a theatre where there is a small fire and where these people are split between those who want to stay and watch the end of the play, and those who want to get out of the theatre. Those who want to watch the end of the play will hang back. Only when the stage bursts into fire will those people go, “Oh My God! I must get out!” And those people will then demand ‘droit de seigneur’ to get out first. It is becoming more and more clear and certain that PRIVILEGE is ‘alive and well’ and that it is thriving everywhere. The Roman system of ‘Clientes’ (which means that the filthy rich met with ‘clients’ and approved projects, with a slice for themselves) is alive and well and is thriving, especially in the EU. Successive Greek Governments have begged, and successfully begged. As a result of successfully begging, they got lots of boxes-full of euros and cents to splurge. What ought to happen is that the Greek Government ought to spend a couple of years and some money to find out why/how they were suckered into the black hole of debt. Then they must Grexit. Grexit when strong, not when weak. — I have other subjects will have to wait. Goodnight.
KinFree made a comment on yesterday’s post:
“a damning independent report, commissioned by the WHO itself.”
but it doesn’t suggest sacking those responsible, or suggesting a re-assessment of operational or organizational efficiency / effectiveness etc. Surprise surprise – instead it suggests they should be given more money.
“The report suggests an immediate contribution from all member countries towards a $100 million special outbreak response fund”
Clearly, the WHO and similar organisations regard themselves as ‘entitled’. I mean that not only in the sense of ‘worthy of support’ but also in the sense of ‘titled': IE, Aristocratic. If the WHO was a person, it would be ‘Baron’ WHO, or ‘Lord’ WHO. It would be ‘titled’ and ‘entitled’. That is how it sees itself.
I was vaguely wondering how much Greece could save if it stopped its contributions to the WHO. The answer is very little. According to the WHO list, Greece’s contribution in 2012 was US$660,000. That sounds a lot, but is little as compared with, say, the UK – US$116,000,000. Even so, if Greece stop those payments, and payments to the UN and all the other leaches, it could perhaps remove not only the direct costs but also the indirect costs, such as maintaining a useless ambassador to the UN.
You see, I firmly believe that government cutting its costs does not depend upon sweeping general cuts in budgets. It requires thousands and thousands of directed cuts. Generalised cuts are just as likely to hit the wrong target as to miss the right target. In that case, the attempt to cut costs is as likely to make things worse as to better them.
But surely Cameron and co can see that the WHO has lost its way? How can the Sec Gen attend a meeting in Moscow about prohibition and persecution of smokers to attain a benefit in 30 years time when thousands of people are dying here and now from Ebola? Why has she allowed her priorities to be skewed so much that the original objective of the WHO, being the alleviation of contagious disease in the 3rd world and elsewhere, no longer matters as compared with unproven non-contagious ‘harms’ from the enjoyment of tobacco?
As KinFree says, “It stinks”.
But I would go further. I would say that the UK’s contributions to the WHO are illegal. Why? Because it is a matter of fact that the UK Government is required to know and reveal what taxpayers’ funds are being used for.
The UK Government has got itself into a Catch 22 situation – a paradox, if you like. It is giving away billions of pounds to the EU Aristocrats without having any control over the use of those taxpayer funds. The EU set-up requires that uncertainty because of the number of member states. And yet, the whole idea of treaties is that the ‘quid pro quo’ should be as clear as possible.
Is it any wonder that the EU is supported by pillars made of mud? What would you expect from idealists who are wide open to take-over by thugs and robber barons?
But there are plenty signs of weakness on the horizon. PP, for example, is a weakness. Emphasising huge pics of diseased gums and claiming that those diseased gums are the result of smoking flies in the face of FACTS as revealed in the NHS pamphlet which I was given by the dentist. In that pamphlet, no claim was made that smoking causes any cancer in any place in the mouth – it merely claimed that smoking exacerbates conditions. So what caused the conditions? That question is ignored.
‘Erosion’ is what we smoking bloggers are looking to achieve. As we have described before, the citadel of TC has weak foundations, and we scratch away at them. I shall not respond to the consultation on the implementation of the Tobacco Directive. There is no point. It is an imposition intended to harass and persecute smokers. The sooner that we all go underground, the better.
But ‘going underground’ does not mean the same as it used to. We do not need to be secretive because we have the world-wide internet. We can hide in full view. We can hide in the swarm. Each of us, as an individual, is not worth demonising. What ‘going underground’ means is not bothering with ‘public consultations’ and such. It means not bothering with YouGov surveys. It means exaggerating your smoking when you fill in a ‘survey questionnaire’ at the dentists. It means buying your tobacco from the cheapest possible source. When laws and regulations become unjust, in your own mind, you have the right to oppose them physically. Not a lot of people know that. Laws about ‘tobacco product duties’ are not laws which concern private individuals going about their legitimate business of being as self-sufficient as they can be. Being self-sufficient is a human right ‘par excellencé’ (forgive misspelling). Laws could be passed to outlaw self-sufficiency, but they would be inhuman and fascist/totalitarian in character. “You are not permitted to grow tomatoes because they contain nicotine, but you can grow potatoes even though they contain nicotine. We Aristocrats have decreed. So be it”. But modern day Aristocrats depend entirely upon Fanatics in governments. The Aristos encourage and fund the Fanatics using either Big Pharma funds or Charity funds.
Frankly, the whole scenario is comical. The universally discredited and considered ‘unfit for purpose’ WHO continues to be funded massively by governments throughout the world which DO NOT need a drag and waste of resources, such as the WHO, to waste their money and drag their economies down. How stupid can nations get?
What must happen, with the WHO, is thorough cleansing. But what nation actually gives a shit? The most important nation is the USA. Judging from its current centenary, give or take a bit, of PROHIBITION, and its renewal of that eugenicist ideal, it is hardly likely to clamp down on WHO corruption.
Stick with the basics. We smokers do no harm to others. SHS danger is is fraud and always has been. Ecigs are irrelevant to the question of the enjoyment of tobacco itself since they do not contain or burn tobacco. Good luck to vapers. I’m glad that you are happy to believe that you have escaped the laws of physics in that you believe that the accumulated damage of smoking over decades can be instantly reversed by a single puff of an ecig. That is magic.
But I support vapers. A line must be drawn somewhere. Vaping must be the line. The idea that vaping should be banned by law, either directly or indirectly, ignores the great difference between inhaling tobacco smoke and inhaling harmless vapour. It is like equating the quaffing of alcohol with orange juice.
There are lots of ‘ebolas’ in Africa. On my own tiny blog, I have noticed that I get hits from all over the world. But the vast continent of Africa is black. Not a single hit from anywhere other than, very occasionally, South Africa. ‘The Dark Continent’ is appropriate.
It is all very sad.
Well, I survived. I did have a good laugh though. I really did LOL. I mean, I really did laugh out loud. Along with the usual ‘do you smoke? How many per day?’ there was a question, “Do you drink more that 14 units of alcohol per week?” 14 units is the 7 pints. There were a few people in, so I read it out loud and laughed my head off. One of the receptionists said, “Did that amuse you?” I replied, “It certainly did. About 7 litres of red wine per week, never mind 7 pints of beer”. I think that I exaggerated a bit – I’m not sure since I don’t count.
I think that the Fanatics have upped their demands on dentists (and, I suppose, on doctors). I used to have a laugh with my dentist about these questions (he used to smoke himself), but he seems to be more serious about it now. I wonder if ASH ET AL have started to exert real pressure on dentists and doctors? I mean, legal tricks, such as: “If you do not give smokers the works, then you could be held legally responsible if one of them turns out to have oral cancer (or whatever) and you miss it”. He certainly seemed to be more thorough this time, even though I consulted him around 12 months ago. He prodded and poked and felt my jaw and mumbled ‘oral cancer’ and stuff.
I’ve just looked up the mortality statistics for 2013 looking for deaths from mouth and associated cancers. There are a lot of sites within the mouth where cancers appear. They are summarised as
|Malignant neoplasms of lip,|
|oral cavity and pharynx.|
Out of some 450,000 deaths in total in 2013, deaths from those sources totalled 2232. Almost none appear before death at the age 45 -49 (93), and the highest age group is 65 – 69 (335). Deaths from cancer of the gums, upper and lower, are negligible (low single figures in each age category).
According to the General Dental Council, there are some 105,000 dental practitioners in the UK, of which 39,300 are described as dentists. So, very roughly, how many of those deaths might have been averted had a dentist/dental practitioner spotted the condition, per dental practitioner per annum? We divided 2000 by 100, 000 and get 1 per 50 years. Taking dentists alone, the figure would be 1 per dentist every 20 years. (By the way, I read somewhere that doctors, on average, would see only 1 lung cancer case per annum)
Another thought occurred to me. Since mouth cancers claim their victims predominantly in old age, I wonder how many people of that age will have whole or partial dentures, or have caps? How many of those people would have cause to visit a dentist and how often?
I have a feeling that dentists are not very happy about being put upon in this way. It is only a feeling. It is because, after the treatment, he thrust a leaflet into my hands as I was leaving. It is called ‘Smoking and Dental Health’. I shall quote one passage [my bold]:
How will smoking affect my gums and teeth?
People who smoke are more likely to have gum disease. Smoking may change the type of bacteria in dental plaque, increasing the number of bacteria that are more harmful. It also reduces the blood flow in the gums and supporting tissues of the tooth and makes them more likely to become inflamed. Smokers’ gum disease will get worse more quickly than in people who do not smoke. Because of the reduced blood flow, smokers may not get the warning symptoms of bleeding gums as much as non-smokers. Gum disease is still the most common cause of tooth loss in adults.
It is hard to read that bunch of ifs, buts, maybes, and generalisations and equate it with the maliciously intended gross pictures of rotting mouths on cig packets. Sometimes, I wonder if tobacco companies are waiting until tobacco control goes really, really over the top before they go to court over the genuineness of the warnings and pictures. If so, then the above para must be getting close to the tipping point.
Actually, I had already ripped up the leaflet and thrown it in the bin. I extracted the pieces from the bin and put it back together to read for this post. In general, why should I read the brainwashing material? It is like TV advertising. It is intended to get into your brain and your mind and influence you whether you know what is going on or not.
Also, if a patient visits the dentist and says that he does not smoke, would the dentist note the stains of his teeth and say to himself that this person is telling lies? Would he then call that person out and tell him that he is a liar? Would he throw that person out of the surgery, after giving him a leaflet? How many patients chuck that leaflet straight in the bin without reading it? My thinking is that going to the dentist is traumatic enough without reading bumph.
But it goes further, does it not? I wonder if tobacco control realises that it is making a fool of itself? Every step it has taken in the recent past has been silly, and everyone know that it is silly. PP? Silly. Hospital grounds bans? Silly. Is it any wonder that head of the WHO has once again resurrected the taxation trick:
WHO: Stepped up government tax action needed to curb tobacco epidemic
7 July 2015
“Raising taxes on tobacco products is one of the most effective – and cost-effective – ways to reduce consumption of products that kill, while also generating substantial revenue,” says Dr Margaret Chan, WHO Director-General.”
[H/T Rose and Frank Davis]
Simply translated: “Smack the poorest people hardest”.
Oh, and this is the woman who is the subject of this:
Which, Rose, leads inexorably to:
WHO ‘unfit for health emergencies’
The Ebola crisis proves the World Health Organization (WHO) lacks the “capacity and culture” to deal with global health emergencies, says a damning independent report, commissioned by the WHO itself.
[H/T nisakiman on Frank Davis’s blog]
Chan, the woman in question, thought it more important to attend the tobacco control meeting in Moscow than to attend to her duties regarding ebola. The toll of deaths from ebola has now reached 11,000. I suppose that those deaths, here and now, count as nothing compared with the theoretical billion, billion, billion lives which will not be infinite as a result of the pleasure of smoking.
A 90 year-old non-smoking teetotaller, who has watched his weight and exercised every day, lies in a nursing home cot. Next to him is an 80 year-old who smoked, drank, wenched, gambled, ate and was merry. The 80 year-old turns to the 90 year old and asks, “What does it feel like to be dying from nothing?” What would a non-smoking, teetotal ebola victim say to Ms Chan.
But nothing will change because these people have, somehow, raised themselves up to be Gods. Even if he wanted to, or dared to try, would Cameron be able to do anything at all about the UN and the WHO? Would he? Funnily enough, if he had the courage, he could ‘do a Greece’. He could say, “We will not pay a penny until a ‘full public enquiry’ has been conducted into every aspect of the WHO”. He could, but he will not. I don’t know why he will not since it would save around a billion pounds per an. Chuck in de-funding the tobacco control FCTC gravy train, and that becomes 2 billion. How about the IPCC (Climate Control)? Another billion.
Am I exaggerating when a say a billion each? Well, yes, directly, but not if you consider the ‘knock on effects’. Throw a million pounds into the streets and people will pick that money up. Assuming that they will spend it, say on cups of coffee and fags, those people who provide the coffee and fags will also spend the windfall, perhaps on holidays. The providers of holidays will themselves spend that money on, perhaps, new cars. And so on and so on.
The effect of the windfall repeats and repeats, but it is like the spread of a wave when a stone is thrown into a pond – as the wave spreads, it becomes weaker and weaker, but it can also be reflected backwards! The word for that effect is ‘circulation’ – circulation of money.
But what if the reverse occurs? Suppose that a ‘standing wave’ of money circulation is suddenly stopped? The reverberations will be the opposite of ‘the windfall affect’.
I am convinced that the fortunes of the Island of Mallorca suffered just such an affect. A few years ago, most hotels in Mallorca operated all year round. Apartments were more subtly affected. There came a point where Thomson holidays took out the Balearics from their ‘winter sun’ brochure. According to a friend who owned a bar in Magalluf, that was devastating. Clearly, he had a much better understanding of the economics of that situation than I had. Thomson holidays was big in Mallorca. When it withdrew its aircraft and booking system, the affect of the loss of business rippled throughout Mallorca.
That affect was bad enough, but then came the smoking ban – more ripples.
Now, almost all the hotels in Mallorca are closed from November to May. And yet, the island is just as pleasant a place it be in December/January as it has always been, and was for many older people who could afford winter prices but not summer prices. Even then, the town was still good fun. The smoking ban came at the worst possible moment in the island’s fortunes, driving down the ripple even more.
So what of Greece’s predicament?
In the first place, we must not expect mass starvation and a spread of ebola-type viruses, although that might occur. Clearly, even if such events occurred, it would be because, a) the Greeks have disobeyed the New Aristocracy, and, b) there are still a lot of smokers in Greece. Clearly, as portrayed in the NHS leaflet, smoking can affect blood-flow to the gums. Clearly, it must also affect blood-flow to the brain, and thus render Einstein and all the other great thinkers stupid.
I wonder if it is possible to find a drug which stops ageing after, say, the age of 45, give or take a bit? Would that not be wonderful? Smoking and drinking might effect one’s longevity, but only after 1000 years or so. Someone wrote a story based upon just that idea. A ‘Professor’ discovered just such a drug via experiments upon his own body. The affect was that he did not age at all. Unfortunately, he had trouble reproducing the drug. The Elite paid billions for laboratories. He was trying his best, but he was in no hurry because he was, himself, immortal. He was in no hurry.
We might contrast that story with the haste of TC to get laws passed before the shit hits the fan. For example, it would behove Greece to kick every impediment to their tourist trade into touch. “Are you a smoker? COME TO GREECE! ENJOY!” Sooner or later, the shit will hit the fan, and, as happened with Prohibition in the USA, the edifice will collapse.
In the meantime, we must continue to harry and ridicule the Fanatics wherever they rear up. “Like licking an ashtray” Who licks ashtrays? “Smells like an ashtray”. Tobacco ash has no smell.
There is a ‘consultation’ about implementing the Tobacco Control Directive. I shall not respond, nor should anyone else. We have gone beyond authority. We are ‘leading beyond authority’. We have become the ‘New Common Purpose’. Each and every one of us will defy, defy and defy, in our own ways, and we shall continue to do so. We shall not allow ourselves to be made miserable, but we shall still defy. If you can venture to a foreign place and buy ‘tobacco products’ cheap, do so. At the same time, take advantage of offers of leaf on the internet, and, at the same time, grow your own stuff. Above all, do not be afraid. That is what the propagandists rely upon. It is not easy to not be afraid. It helps to imagine the worst case scenario – what would TC gain by raiding my house and ripping up my plants? The answer is nothing. In fact, the answer is in the negative – it would cost more to mount such a raid than the value of my plants. Further, there is no certainty that I would then buy taxed tobacco. NO WAY!
Is that why the Fanatics want to ban ecigs? It is a simple idea but an attractive one. It has nothing to do with health, but entirely to do with POWER.