The Evil Intentions of Tobacco Control

I had to laugh today when I looked at Simon Clark’s blog (‘Taking Liberties’ – see sidebar). After a couple of months since the matter first appeared, some interest has been shown again in the ‘Boxwrap’s’ endeavour to sell wraps for cigarette packets in Australia. It seems that The Times has mentioned this endeavour. It also seems that Tobacco Control Industry Minor Advertising Manger known as Deborah Arnott had something to say about it:

“Smokers aren’t interested in wasting their money just to cover up the health warnings.”

I don’t know how she would know how true that statement is. How would she know what Smokers might decide to do?  But, then again, is it not typical of the Zealots, to say whatever suits them? Perhaps a meta-study has been funded by the DoH.

But I must admit that I personally would not pay about £1.50 to buy a stick-on wrap to change the appearance of one packet of fags. To that extent, I agrees with Arnott. However, as usual with the Zealots, she confounds. When we cover the disgusting, obscene pictures, we are not covering the health warnings. We are covering the disgusting, stinking, filthy, obscene, grisly, glitzy lies.

Personally, like many others, I do not even notice the warnings and images any more. I hardly even look at the packet at all, other than to find the bit that enables one to tear the cellophane off.

But Arnott’s statement led me to think a bit.

TC says that it does not want ‘plain packaging’ for its immediate effect on smokers. It wants plain packaging so that CHILDREN will be put off smoking. TC believes (as a confidence trick) that CHILDREN who see fag packets with gruesome pics will be put off ever starting smoking. That may be true, but is it not also likely, since children have their own way of interpreting what they see, that CHILDREN seeing these images will think that they are on the point, at any moment, of catching these disgusting, filthy, stinking DISEASES? Is not that how children’s minds work?

There is a contradiction in the statements of Tobacco Control. Grisly images may possibly put them off smoking some time in the future, but, in the meantime, how much will these images damage the minds of children who see them? That is why we protect children from such sights. The minds of children are not fully developed. Children find it difficult to be objective.

So why does Arnott want CHILDREN to see these harmful-to-the-minds-of-children images? The answer is that she does not care. She does not care how harmful these images may be to CHILDREN. Further, she can only get away with it because any possibility of opposition has been neutered.

——————

There is an extremely simple way to protect OUR children from these harmful images. Here are the steps:

1) Do not remove the bottom part of the cellophane on a cig packet.

2) Cut out a picture from any source, preferably card, and insert it into the cellophane covering.

That’s it.

Here are a couple of pictorial examples:

2013-01-09 15.33.00

That is a pic of a Christmas card.

2013-01-09 15.33.11

That is a pic of a cig packet. The packet is open, but the bottom cellophane has not been removed.

2013-01-09 17.05.11

You can see that I have simply cut out the pretty pic of little pussy-cat kittens and slipped it inside the cellophane. I showed it to a couple of guys in the pub tonight, and they were much amused. If I can remember, I’ll extract the card before I chuck the cig packet and re-use the card.

But there is an important point. We do not want OUR children to imagine that they are in imminent danger of catching horrific non-communicable diseases.

It is precisely that expectation that Arnott and co wish OUR CHILDREN to believe. That is why Arnott and Co are unimaginably evil.

——————-

A VERY IMPORTANT AFTER-THOUGHT.

How consciously are Tobacco Control Industry Senior Executives deliberately suggesting that ‘non-communicable diseases’ can be transmitted from one person to another? Note that the question is about how ‘consciously’ they are doing it, and not whether they are doing it or not. These people are doing precisely that – they are promoting the idea that ‘non-communicable diseases’ can be communicated. The means of communicating, say, cancer, from one person to another, is via tobacco. A recent ‘study’ suggested that grandparents who smoke can ‘infect’ their grandchildren with non-communicable diseases via their genes.

Could that be true? Well, I suppose that it could be true. But, as usual with Tobacco Control, the evidence relies upon minute differences observed in epidemiological studies. As we all instinctively know, the reality is 99.99999….recurring % of children will experience no such transmission of non-communicable diseases.

We used to say, “Lies, damn lies and statistics” jokingly, but the real application of that truism is only now beginning to seriously affect us.

I suppose that the situation will have to get much, much worse before it stops. Note that no one stops it – it just stops. It is a horrendous fact that even the ‘goodies’, like UKIP, will not devote themselves to destroying the destroyers.

5 Responses to “The Evil Intentions of Tobacco Control”

  1. Marie Says:

    Silly question. How are children going to see these gruesome images if there is a display ban in operation?
    Do parents routinely wave their ciggy packs under the little darlings noses?

  2. garyk30 Says:

    Dear Marie,
    You must not ask such obvious questions, the logic involved will give the TC nannies cause to go into a brain freeze! 😦

  3. garyk30 Says:

    Another awkward question for them:

    If quitting smoking is supposed to be good for us, why are ex-smokers more likely to have died from such things as strokes and heart attacks?

    Data from the summary of Doll’s doctor death report.

    Other cancers are 74% of the cancers noted and include such as brain cancer, rectal cancer, and etc.

    11.9% of the heavy smokers(25+/day) total deaths were from these other cancers.

    15.4% of the ex-smokers total deaths were from those other cancers.

    That is a 29% INCREASE in other cancer deaths.

    24.5% of the heavy smokers total deaths were from heart attacks(IHD).

    32% of the ex-smokers total deaths were from heart attacks.

    That is a 31% INCREASE in heart attack deaths.

    11.5% of the heavy smoker total deaths were from stroke.

    13.2% of the ex-smoker total deaths were from stroke.

    That is a 15% INCREASE in stroke deaths.

    One gets the distinct feeling that the TC nannies do not have our best interests in mind!

  4. junican Says:

    Marie.
    That question has been asked many times, but answer comes there none. The answer is that the concern for children is fake concern. What the zealots want is control of THE SIZE of cigarette packets. Given control of the size of the packet, you can also control the size of the contents.

    Gary.
    Those observations need to be noted. As you have pointed out before, there are a number of similar gems. I hope that you are keeping a record – I may need to consult you in due course!

  5. beobrigitte Says:

    Advertising Manger known as Deborah Arnott had something to say about it:

    “Smokers aren’t interested in wasting their money just to cover up the health warnings.”

    This made me laugh out loud!!! Debbie, smokers will just ignore the fake pictures on cigarette packets or use:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003NES6YM/ref=asc_df_B003NES6YM11431801?smid=A2922XQCX1P0GT&tag=hydra0b-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22218&creativeASIN=B003NES6YM&hvpos=1o5&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1357887731317349449&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=

    Just a question, WHO paid for this nonsense put on cigarette packets?

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: