The Two Faces of Tobacco Control

It is becoming more and more obvious that tobacco control is split down the middle. There was a time when anyone who stepped out of line was simply ex-communicated and sidelined, but there are now far too many such people for that tactic to be effective. It seems to me that the support for out and out ‘quit or die (and we do not care which)’ is diminishing by the day.

‘And we do not care which’ is appropriate because the Zealots see smokers as dispensable. They want to surround smokers with a fence and pen them in and stop ‘youths’ from entering into the pen. The long term visualisation of tobacco control zealots is that the penned-in smokers will either quit or die. The fact that ALL humans will die eventually is obscured by vague promises of ‘not dying prematurely’, and thus implying infinite life. Note that the Zealots never suggest that there is any downside to living a life in old age riddled with pain, decrepitude and senility. Nor do they ever talk about the costs to society of such people.

But the ‘quit or die’ Zealots still hold the top positions in tobacco control. This is evidenced by the stupid antics of politicians such as Milton MP, Soubry MP and Ellison MP. Note clearly that the conservative, wealthy Sec of State for Health, Hunt MP, keeps his own head well below the parapet. These people are still singing from the hymn-sheet of ‘official’ tobacco control – those people who infiltrated the health dept years ago. Thus we have the picture of Silly Dame Sally, the Chief Medical Officer, repeating the WHO and EU line on e-cigs which has been manifestly debunked by many of the former anti-tobacco enthusiasts.

I can give you a link to read about Silly Dame Sally’s blunders:

Clearly, she is part of a group, which includes Chapman in Australia, Glantz in the USA, Pell and co in the UK, who are ‘together’. That is, they form a group, with many others, who are associated with the WHO Framework Convention organisation. Silly Dame Sally has fallen into a trap from which she cannot escape. She has so tied herself into this group that she has no one else to turn to.

These flashing, red lights should be obvious to Hunt MP, Sec of State for Health, but he prefers to turn a blind eye. It must be that he is happy for her to carry the can and make a fool of herself.

You might reasonably ask what Hunt MP is terrified of. Why does he not clear out of the Health Dept the likes of the charlatan, Andrew Black? Could he not see that Black was twisting the health ministers around his finger? Why does he not see that it is not the job of health ministers to attack tobacco companies and persecute smokers?

One of the (unspoken) tenets of our social system is that of ‘fairness’. It is built into our psyche. It over-rides ‘majority rule’. For decades, tobacco control has been undermining ‘fairness’ via its polls. “70% agree with smoking bans in pubs (even though 90% of those polled rarely go to pubs)”. These strictures are published as though the 70% have the right to total control, but they work contrary to our long-held demand for ‘fairness’. “Fairness” demands that at least some pubs should be available for smokers, at the discretion of the owner of the pub. Employees in such places have the right to risk their health (such as the risk is) if they wish to.


Simon Cooke, in his blog:

has made a rather passionate appeal for people to vote conservative in both the local elections and the EU elections. Much as I admire Mr Cooke for his libertarian, but compassionate, views, I cannot agree. The reason is, as regards my own ward, that the conservative candidate is an out and out tobacco control zealot. He will almost certainly be re-elected because this ward tends to be conservative, but, fortunately, there is a UKIP candidate so both herself and I have voted for UKIP (and also in the EU election). We MUST, if the LibLabCon comfortable hegemony and complacency is to be broken up.

“Fairness” requires tolerance. Tobacco Control does not do “tolerance”.




%d bloggers like this: