“Admit Nothing”

In the last post we saw how a person who is an Irish MP tried to say that smokers have been persecuted enough and that PP was a bad idea, largely because it would encourage smuggling. At the same time, he admitted to being addicted, and thus destroyed his whole case. Compare his statement with that from the Zealot’s speech which followed. No quarter was given; Tobacco kills 50% of its users; think of the children; etc.

It is a political tenet that one must never say anything good about the opposition’s ideas, although personal flattery of your opponents (with the intention of showing how sweet you are) is OK. This tenet has been extended to ‘science’, as we have seen in the climategate fiasco. It has also been extended to the statements of ‘medical professionals’, such as Chapman and Glantz.  As we have seen again and again, it has been a deliberate ploy, for the Zealots, NEVER to admit anything positive about tobacco. Not one word. The fact that soldiers in WW1 and WW2 found that tobacco helped them to control their fear and anxiety means nothing to the Zealots and, in fact, is suppressed. Instead, as was said in the Doctors Study, the supplying of tobacco to the troops in those wars was a plot by tobacco companies to addict as many soldiers a possible. The Zealots chose their words very carefully, of course. It isn’t the soldiers’ fault – it is Big Tobacco. In fact, if they could, they would make a point of ‘exposing’ that a tobacco company supplied both sides. In fact, I don’t know why they haven’t, since it is almost certainly true. Supplying tobacco is hardly the same as supplying weapons and bombs. In fact, since the supplying of tobacco is simply to alleviate the suffering of the troops, one might regard it as something like the Red Cross – a charitable act, regardless of which side you are on. But ‘No!’, say the Zealots. Big Tobacco was the devil incarnate. It supplied both sides for profit and to hook a new generation of addicts.

Not a word about the how troops, individually and personally,  gained some alleviation of the horrors of the war in which they were engaged – not a word. We saw this effect in the final report of the Doctors Study. The vast increase in cigarette smoking occurred mainly during WW1, in the first instance. THAT WAS VERY, VERY BAD NEWS, the Zealots say. If that had not been the case, those troops who were not machine-gunned to death, or blown to bits, or crushed, or poisoned by mustard gas, would not have pegged out 50 years later from ‘tobacco related diseases’.

I don’t know how the authors of the Final Reports (almost certainly written by propaganda ‘experts’) got away with such claims. I suppose that it has been the lapse of time and the deaths of Generals who realised how important tobacco was to the troops. On the other hand, I  doubt that such Generals, in their dotage, would have read erudite publications in the BMJ and The Lancet.

Am I right in believing that General Jackson made a speech at a recent Forest event? I don’t know what he said, but I would be surprised if he did not mention the benefits of tobacco to his troops.

From time to time, in the past, I have been in the situation where a ‘killer phrase’ can stop a stupid proposal going further. For example, when I was Treasurer of the golf Club where I played, it was suggested that bar prices should be reduced to encourage greater use of the clubhouse. Council seriously considered the idea, until I asked the simple question, “Who are the people who will be encouraged to use the clubhouse more?” I followed that with the simple statement that, in my opinion (because the matter was not factual but emotional), what we would be doing was reducing our ACTUAL income on the vague premise of a POSSIBLE increase in our income, if we REDUCED our income.

Tobacco Control has been using the same sort of argument as those who thought that reducing your income would produce more income, without specifically saying how that would come about. Thus, the Zealots claim that reducing smoking would reduce demands upon the NHS. Not so. Smoking has diminished over several decades, but the demands upon the NHS have grown and grown. Alcohol consumption has been decreasing for decades and decades, and yet the demands upon the NHS have grown and grown. Is it surprising that the needs of the very old are now the main cost of the NHS?

I am not suggesting that the NHS needs of the very old should be reduced by killing them, it is rather that the Health Zealots, as a result of never acknowledging ‘down-sides’, cannot see that their idea and plans cannot result in anything other that euthanasia eventually. When the planet is inhabited by a population which consists of masses of very old, decrepit people, kept alive by Health Zealots, there are only two alternatives – either the Health Zealots continue to reign supreme, or there is revolution and war.


Cancer is not A DISEASE. It is a CONDITION. If a person has a malfunctioning immune system, he is suffering from a CONDITION, and not a disease, unless that malfunction has been caused by some bacterium or virus or something similar. Very, very old people are at serious risk of pneumonia, but pneumonia is not a disease, in itself. The word describes THE RESULT, in the lungs, of invasion by pathogens and fungi, etc, which the lungs of a very old person are no longer able to cope with, because the immune system has collapsed due to old age.

These considerations lead us to believe that ‘the delayed effect of smoking’ is a artefact. There is no temporal delay or there is.  Certainly, the Doctors Study does not ‘prove’ such a delay. It merely proposes such a delay as an explanation. Bearing in mind that the Zealots had already decided that smoking kills, then the only explanation for deaths in old age of smokers before non-smokers must be ‘temporal delay’ of the effects. That is a circular argument. The temporal delay is caused by the temporal delay.


Is it not odd that Politicians are unable to see that deaths are caused by ‘accidents’?  An accident might be malaria, or pneumonia, or a car crash, or lung cancer. All of them are ‘accidents’. Death is cause by ‘accidents’, normally as a result of the collapse, inadequacies or absence of the immune system (apart from violent causes).


In any case, what does it matter if healthy, wealthy people in the rich West are smoking and dying in old age? Why is the WHO bothered about that when we are being continuously told via the TV that masses and masses of kids in Africa are suffering in the ‘Dark Continent’? Note that I have duplicated ‘Africa’ and ‘The dark Continent’. I have done so for a reason. This blog has ‘hits’ from all over the World, but the hits from anywhere in Africa are zero for all intents. Pro-rata, about 70% are from the UK, about 20% are from the USA, Canada and Oz. 5% are from ‘others’, mostly in Europe. Only about 5% are from remote areas. But, considering the size of Africa, the absence of ‘hits’ is meaningful. It means that the WHO (and the UN by implication) is a sham. The WHO is far worse than corrupt, it actually encourages and demands that Big Pharma rules.

Since the EU ‘Health Dept’ is intimately connected to the WHO, that too is  hopelessly corrupt.


I must to bed.

“Admit nothing” applies not only to smokers but also to Governments. It means “prove it”. Regarding PP, it is not sufficient to ‘expect’ certain results. ‘Expectation’ in Oz has produced nothing but vicious persecution. Remember that a little pain to lots of people is just as bad as lots of pain to a few.

Anti-smoking laws are torture in their way. The Smoking Bans in the UK have been a form of torture. Not so much about forbidding smoking, but more about forbidding permitting smoking. THAT is the MASSIVE INJUSTICE. That is what needs to be overturned. No citizen is obliged to be a ‘law enforcer’, apart, possibly, as regards the ‘Common Law’.




6 Responses to ““Admit Nothing””

  1. harleyrider1978 Says:

    Cousin General BlackJack Pershing stated publicly for the government to send Tobacco to the troops it was as important as bullets…………after that the anti-smoking movement totally failed and the support for tobacco was the same as support for the war effort and against the Kaiser. Anyone who then after condemned tobacco was basically branded a TRAITOR!

    That’s why we see the smoking bans in America being repealed left and right in 1917 and onward………….Besides General Pershing had 100 Muslim Terrorists shot and buried with Pig Feces in the Phillipines and for 50 years the Phillipines never had another terrorist attack…………that was in about 1907 if I remember right.

    • junican Says:

      I think that it was vets returning from WW1 who demolished the Prohibition of Tobacco – eventually – along with the Depression, which sharpened a lot of minds.

  2. smokingscot Says:

    I’ll hazard a guess here Junican. A blog about growing your own tobacco simply has no relevance to just about anyone living in the English speaking countries in Africa. There it’s a weed.

    And if you’re getting hits from the Ukraine then it’s likely they’re link spammers.

    • Junican Says:

      Fortunately, I get little spam.
      Your comment about tobacco plants being weeds in Africa is interesting. I wonder if those plants self-seed in such mild climates?

  3. harleyrider1978 Says:

    Hell ya tobacco will self seed,you should see a 300 acre field 2 months after harvest if t wasn’t tilled under…..its covered in more tobacco plants everywhere!

    • Junican Says:

      That’s what I thought, cousin. A few weeks ago, I put some seeds in my propagator (to replace some slug-damaged plants). I didn’t take any special steps – just left the propagator on the kitchen window ledge. They germinate splendidly.
      so absolutely, “YES!” In regions of the world with a naturally mild and warm climate, the idea of controlling the proliferation of tobacco plants is nonsense.
      I wonder if that is the reason that Australia passed a law in 1911 controlling the trade in and movement of tobacco seeds? All the more reason for Australian smokers to scatter seeds all over the place!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: