The Split within the Ranks of Tobacco Control

It seems to me that the split within the ranks of tobacco control is widening by the day. I think that it is the duty of PETS (People who Enjoy Tobacco) to stick a wedge into the split and tap, tap to widen it. The split seems to be permanent. It isn’t going to heal itself. People like Siegel and Philips have been excommunicated and ostracised, and these people, notably Siegel, were very instrumental in gaining the triumph of the MSA settlement, which brought millions of dollars into the coffers of tobacco control. And yet they have been chucked out unceremoniously by the likes of the motor mechanic Glantz and the psychopath (sorry, psychic) Chapman in Australia. They are hurting, and rightly so. They are hurting because they are losing control little by little. Whereas, a few years ago, their garbled statistics would have been accepted in academic circles without demure, they are now being questioned again and again. I cannot help but believe that overconfidence among the serious Zealots who inhabit the WHO, the EU, the FDA in America is starting to work against them. A couple of years ago, I had never heard of snus (it is a wet form of tobacco which is popped into the the space between lip and gum and allowed to dissolve, thus providing a supply of nicotine). A couple of years ago, I went to Prague for a holiday. In the small pub across the road from the hotel, there congregated a motley of nationalities who were staying at the hotel. Chess is a great international leveller. I had my electronic chess set with me and played it most evenings after dinner in the pub. One night, there was a German couple in, and, as happens, we talked ourselves into having a game. But, amusing yourself with an electronic chess set, invites conversation. Thus, I got into conversation with a Swedish couple. The man used snus, and he offered me some and showed me what to do. As I understand it, snus can come in little packets, but, in this case, it was loose. It was not unpleasant to taste, but I found it, shall we say, aggravating. In my mind, I see snus as not much different to chewing tobacco. Also, there was a Polish young woman in the pub who was staying at the hotel. She was only there for one night since she was in transit to Australia where she lived. We had a great time drinking wine into the early hours, about 3 am. Sadly, she refused my invitation to a game of chess in either her room or mine. But we had breakfast together the next morning and it was lovely.

Who banned snus? It is just the same as chewing tobacco – you put it into your mouth. Who had the authority to ban it? Why did people comply? WHY DID PEOPLE COMPLY? The answer is ‘the choke point’. I tobacco control circles, the ‘choke point’ idea is essential. It means identifying the place where supply of a good can be ‘choked’.  In the case of snus, it was the banning of exports of snus to the rest of the EU from Sweden, along with a ban on the manufacture and distribution of snus in other countries. We must therefore ask, “Why did the Swedish Government not rebel and AUTHORISE the distribution of snus to other countries in the EU? What was Sweden afraid of?

——-

Is that the crux? Has the EU actually become the equivalent of NAZI Germany? States like Sweden and the UK are terrified of the EU. Is that the reason that Cameron/Clegg/Milband continue to allow our country’s tax monies to be drained by the EU and the UN? Are they terrified? What are they terrified of?

Readers may not know this. Quite a lot of the signatories to the FCTC have never paid A PENNY of their supposed contributions to the FCTC organisation. The USA was not a signatory, and, despite its wealth and anti-tobacco stance, has not paid ONE PENNY to the FCTC. The UK has, of course, thrown vast amount of money at it. God only knows why and who authorised these payments.

——-

But I have drifted away from my topic.

The split in tobacco control exists. We can insert a little wedge and tap, tap away on the wedge, a little at a time. For example, ASH ET AL are obviously funding terrorists in Iraq. Why else would these people be trying to overturn their own government other than to inset tobacco control? They have have done just that, using the threat of chopping off hands and feet. That is what tobacco control want. The BMA said so, thus, the BMA is allied with terrorists in Iraq. It cannot be otherwise since they share the same ideals.

Welcome to UK-style terrorism. I think that it is fair to describe it as terrorism, since the obscene pictures on fag packets are designed to induce terror in those who see them. That is what the obscene pics are for. WE have also seen, in the last few days, the British Medical Association wishing to introduce even more terror.

=====

There is a difference in degree, but what we have been seeing over the past few years, from tobacco control, has been terrorism. I think that we should compile a list of these terrorists. Perhaps we should exclude dead ones, such as Doll and Gilmore.

PEOPLE WHO INDUCE TERROR.

Glantz in the USA.

Chapman in Australia.

Andrew Black, the Australian in the UK Health Dept.

Nathanson in the BMA.

Arnott in ASH.

—-

It is late, so my brain has frozen a bit (induced by red wine a little). We need that list. They may not be assassins, but they are still terrorists in the sense that they go out of their way to induce terror. They could be categorised, such as ‘MP terrorists’. Such MP terrorists would include Williams MP, Blackman MP, etc. They all conspire to induce TERROR of SHS. I would not include those MPs who just voted in favour of the smoking bans since they were pathetic and sombulant at the time, even though they contributed to the societal and economic damage.  They were innocent victims of THE TOBACCO CONTROL INDUSTRY. Erm… No they weren’t. They knew damn well what they were doing when they ratified the FCTC. What they did not know was how extensive it was and much it would cost. It was like authorising ‘protection’ of badgers, but, thereby, authorising the extermination of badgers, because, in the small print, the ‘regulation’ said ‘viable’ badger sets. That is the sort of trickery that no MP dares reveal, because it show him up to be stupid.

But, when you think about it, that is the sort of thing that FOREST should be doing, if it purports to be the defender of smokers, and it should be massively funded by tobacco companies because it is supposed to speak for consumers. It should brag about its funding. It should shout, “FOREST IS NOT A TAX-PAYER FUNDED QUANGO, IT IS AN ORGANISATION FUNDED WITH THE HELP OF CERTAIN TOBACCO COMPANIES TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS TO ENJOY TOBACCO IF THE WISH TO”. But, most of all, it must be sufficiently big to ADVERTISE. Is that not weird, as an idea? But that should not be a problem since we have freedom of speech.

What is absolutely critical, and should be tested in law, is the freedom of a person to set up a bar, owned and staffed by smokers, for the enjoyment of smokers. Such people accept the risks, if any. IT MUST BE DONE, regardless of costs, but only tobacco companies could stand the costs. The crazy thing is that it would take only one bar to open and state ‘smoking permitted in this bar” to cause the collapse of the whole ‘anti-freedom’, terrorist Health Establishment. ‘Terror’ is the weapon that the Tobacco CONTROL industry employs.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

8 Responses to “The Split within the Ranks of Tobacco Control”

  1. cherie79 Says:

    Must admit I have never understood why the tobacco industry hasn’t fought for our rights and to protect it’s own business.

    • junican Says:

      Indeed. Tobacco control have dozens of NGOs and hundreds of employees all over the world.Tobacco Companies seem to do almost nothing except defend themselves and their profits.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    Cherie,
    Even tho smoking rates( in the USA) have gone down by 50% over the last 50 years, the number of smokers has remained about 46-48 million over that time.
    Tobacco Co’s are doing just fine.

    • junican Says:

      True, gary, but there are all sorts of things that they could have done. Even the simple measure of putting inserts into packets to alert smokers of what legislation was being proposed and things like that could have rallied smokers to some extent. It is now too late since the plain packaging proposals will ban inserts.

  3. garyk30 Says:

    ” We had a great time drinking wine into the early hours, about 3 am. Sadly, she refused my invitation to a game of chess in either her room or mine.”

    It would seem that there is a dirty old man in the group. 🙂
    Does your wife read this blog?

    Actually, Harley seems to be a scoundrel too.

    On the other hand, I am pure as snow.
    I have no choice, my wife would hurt me if I were different! 😦

    • junican Says:

      What!! A game of chess at 3 am means that one is a scoundrel? Actually, in my alcohol damaged state, she might well have beaten me. There again, I might have managed to give her a little spanking.
      Hanky-panky-spanky.

  4. Tony Says:

    Hi Junican,
    I’ve just noticed that the McTear Scottish court judgement link has died. I found another here:
    http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c77c86a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

    • junican Says:

      Many thanks for that, Tony – and for doing the legwork! I have amended the link here and on the other blog which is devoted just to the McTear Case.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: