The Creation of Monopolies

As I expected, the mental thread did come back into my mind when I was having a beer in the pub. But before I go there, I should talk for a moment about the wonderful ‘pub experience’ tonight. When I went in, there may have been six customers in. By 10.15 pm there was only me left. So I bought a last pint and took it home with me. A big pubco insolvency is due, but, of course, the smoking ban will not have been in the least bit responsible.

So here I am.

The thought came back, but it is not surprising that I lost it because the link between my starting couple of sentences and the body of the post was tenuous in the extreme.

I started by saying that daughter 2 had actually volunteered to look after her Ma for a few days so that I could have a break, so I’ll be off to sunny-ish Spain for a few days in about a fortnight – flights and hotel booked. This is only possible as a result of family lerv and trust. Trust is the link. When we elect our MPs, we place our trust in them.

I think that the expenses scandal destroyed that trust. Our MPs are ordinary people and can make mistakes, but the expenses scandal was not just a matter of making mistakes. It was (and still is) wholesale premeditated theft. It showed that an awful lot of MPs have little interest in looking after the interests of the people who elect them, so they will vote for whatever crackpot idea is presented to them, provided that they think that it is, or will be, popular. Or, in the negative, that voting in favour of that idea will do them less harm than voting against it. Voting for anything which is said to be pro-children is obviously a no-brainer. Even the peers are not immune to the ‘for the children’ argument, even though the ‘for the children’ argument is pretty obviously false. We have seen this in the House of Lords debate on smoking in cars.

But I’ll come back to that specific matter later (if I can remember and don’t become too inebriated).


Perhaps people will remember me talking about the law in Australia about growing tobacco plants. It was forbidden (along with dealing in or moving seeds and plants) without a permit in an Act of 1901. I went into some detail about it here:

I suspect that that law was enacted to protect aristocratic interests in tobacco plantations at the time. But I doubt that that Act has been, shall we say, ‘active’ for many decades until recently. Certainly I know that many Australians grow their own, or used to until very recently. You would think that Australia would be perfect for growing tobacco plants in view of its climate and the nature of its terrain in many parts. Tobacco companies stopped growing tobacco there some time ago. I don’t know why. Perhaps the Zealots had already started to make things difficult for them.

This curiosity enables us to see how a monopoly was created by the-powers-that-be with deliberate intent. You see, if Australians apply for a permit to grow tobacco plants, they are refused. It is said that inspecting premises and ensuring security is too expensive. Applications are turned down. So, in theory, no one in Australia grows tobacco plants, and thus, the Public Health Industry has a monopoly over the raw materials that the Tobacco Industry needs. Perhaps Simple Simon Chapman is smarter than we think. After all, he could lobby for the banning of imports of tobacco leaf, if he wanted to, but he doesn’t. Why not? Why does he not DEMAND the end of imports of tobacco leaf into Australia? He would make the excuse that such a demand would not be ‘realistic’, but that is a specious argument since it does not stop him from making the demand. Why is he not making the demand? The answer is that, if you have a monopoly, why would you want to stop making the profits available from the monopoly?


The Public Health Industry in the UK has been going about creating a similar monopoly for some time. It would be very difficult to get growing of the plants banned because so many European countries have thriving tobacco plantations. Instead, they have sneaked legislation through which has had a similar effect – it has created legislation on the sly which treats the making of ‘tobacco products’ similar to the making of bombs – only in ‘permitted places’. Also, as we know from previous enquiries, tobacco no longer needs to be tobacco. It can be ‘a tobacco substitute’. You could roll up cotton wool in a paper tube and it thereby becomes a ‘tobacco product’, if you are prepared to put a match to it and suck it.

But what is important in these sneaked through prohibitions is that they give the Tobacco Industry a ‘de facto’ monopoly, since anyone who wanted to set up a factory would have to comply with stringent – and very expensive – conditions. There is also a further constraint which maintains the Tobacco Company monopoly, which is the advertising ban. That ban effectively ruled new-comers out of the market. Individual Tobacco Companies have still been able to compete with each other, but the established ‘giants’ have a monopoly as an industry. I should imagine that the ‘giants’ were pretty pleased with this situation. Did they foresee the plain packaging stuff though? Actually, I suspect that they are putting up only a token resistance, since PP will further restrict competition. What is there not to like?

And there is another consideration. Since at least 70% of the price of tobacco products in the the UK is tax, another monopoly situation has been contrived. This monopoly is a Government monopoly, which also works to the financial advantage of the ‘giants’ and to the financial advantage of the Public Health Industry.


This is where we come back to our ‘trust’ in MPs. It is almost certainly true that they are ignorant of the facts. They have been told to ‘think of the children’, but what they should be thinking about is ‘the monopoly’.

We are supposed to have laws in this country which prohibit monopolies. Those laws should also apply to the Public Health Industry. It is because it has a monopoly that ecigs are being so viciously attacked. It keeps claiming that, “We do not know what is in them”, and yet it has had seven years or so to conduct the research. Of course it is well-known ‘what is in them’, but the Public Health Industry, because it is a monopoly, can ignore any evidence that it does not like. It is also for this reason that it can claim that second-hand smoke can have ‘devastating’ effects.

But the monopoly gets worse all the time. Now, according to the BMJ, only research conducted by the Public Health Industry will be published. When the BMJ announced that it would not publish anything funded by the Tobacco Industry, it laid the foundations for refusing to publish studies funded by other industries – except the Public Health Industry.

As a result, we can see the massive attraction of The Public Health Industry to charlatans and snake oil salesmen. THEY CANNOT LOSE! There is no opposition, and even if there was, the MSM is taken care of. That can only be due to bribes of one sort or another. But what is absolutely the worst thing is the complicity of our elected representatives in this conspiracy to erect the MONOPOLY of The Public Health Industry, and with it, to erect a monopoly for the giants of the Tobacco Industry. Stacks of money to be made for the foreseeable future.


But there is also another aspect to the viciousness of The Public Health Monopoly allied with The Tobacco Industry monopoly which is the denial of Natural Law. Human Beings have the natural right to decide for themselves – to be self-sufficient as far as possible provided that they respect the natural rights of others. The idea that they should be punished in any way at all for making their own choices is criminal. Thus, The Public Health Industry is not only an (illegal) monopoly, but it is also a criminal industry according to natural law.

Cameron and co all seem to have “Firsts” gained from universities, and yet they seem to be ignorant of the first principle of being a free human being. We dare not trust them, and we have every right to defy them.




4 Responses to “The Creation of Monopolies”

  1. J Brown Says:

    Human beings have not ‘had the right’ to decide for themselves in every capacity ever, actually. It is only when the government intercedes in something that we personally want to do that we get involved in these issues. Who cared about motorcycle helmet laws? Motorcyclists, basically. Who cared about marijuana laws? Users. Who cares about tobacco control? Smokers. Having laws that ‘infringe’ on our personal liberties is as old as written history. A monopoly on our personal decision making – whether by governments, religious leaders, kings, lords of an estate, the Bible, etc., is as old as the human race.

    • junican Says:

      I was speaking more of the ideal than of what is actually happening. It seems to me that people are becoming more concerned in modern times about ‘inequalities’ (and, by implication, ‘equalities’. I know that some Americans are becoming concerned about the appearance that the US constitution is being eroded by stealth.

      • J Brown Says:

        While it is true that there are some Americans concerned about the Constitution, most of them would prefer that the Constitution never changed at all, and would still be indicative of a society that was relevant in the 18th centure – if the Constitution had not changed, no blacks, women, etc., would have any rights, as the Constitution did not afford them any. Sadly, much of the backlash about rights in the US is due to this fear of ‘terrorism’ which actually ties in to your next blog about access of information. The US government receives information – mostly from a ‘hawk’ standpoint, about the elaborate, well connected terrorist organization that is out to ruin western civilization, and responds by reducing civil liberties. Well-meaning, perhaps, but again, the information is driven by profit-motivated groups. Essentially, the same happens with tobacco control. It happens with everything, IMHO.
        I do believe that access to information has the capacity to change the world – certainly the USSR did not fall because of military issues, etc – it fell basically due to ‘economic information’ that was available to the masses through worldwide access to information. And again, when such matters actually matter to an individual or a group, they are then compelled to do their homework. A non-smoker doesn’t care about tobacco control. A pedestrian doesn’t care about helmet laws, etc.

      • junican Says:

        We have the same here in the UK, as I’m sure you do in Ireland. Airport security is an example. It’s amazing how many organisations immediately see a way to enrich themselves from it at the public’s expense!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: