Cold Calculation and Sadism

In the comment to yesterday’s post, Smoking Scot linked to a couple of sites about the value of increasing taxation to discourage smoking. At both those sites, no thought was given to the ethics of bashing the least well-off.

Suppose that you went into a corner shop to buy a packet if fags. There is another person in front of you. He buys a packet of cigars and leaves the shop. You approach the counter and ask for 20 of your favourites. The shopkeeper smacks you across the face very hard. You say, “Shit! What did you do that for?” The shopkeeper replies, “Well, I know that you are rather poor, so you should be spending your money on better things than fags. You are disgusting”. You reply, “But you did not smack the other guy”, to which the shop-keeper responds, “But I know that he is well-off, so he can afford fags, and I will touch my forelock and say, “Yes, Sir – at once, Sir” to him. You are a disgusting, filthy, stinking smoker, but he is an aficionado of good cigars. He also buys the best and most expensive wines and champagnes”. You reply, “I’ll take my custom elsewhere”, to which he responds, “Suit yourself, but you’ll get a good, hard smack wherever you go. That is the law”.

That is what ‘sin’ taxes essentially are. They are hard smacks in the face. But they are only hard smacks if the person does not have the defence of wealth, even if the wealth is moderate. Only those individuals whose income is so low that they have to make choices between tobacco and food, heating, etc, get the hard smack.

But what is perhaps more alarming is the coldness of the calculations. There is never any expression of regret that the poorest people are being targeted, while the better-off are relatively unaffected. Minimum pricing of alcohol is exactly the same – it is deliberately targeted at the least well-off.

It is a cold, sadistic calculation. It is the sort of cold, sadistic calculation that the Nazi hierarchy made regarding Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, but for different reasons. In respect of those people, the cold, sadistic reasoning was about ‘worthiness’. Such people were ‘unworthy’ and a blight on the body-politic. They were racially impure (and had wealth which they did not deserve, and which could be confiscated ‘for the greater good’), or a burden, or ugly.

‘Disgusting, filthy, stinking’ smokers are ugly. Give them a good smacking, and steal their money if they have not much of it. DON’T steal from the rich, steal from the poor. There are vastly more poor people than there are rich, so smacking the poor will raise more revenue. Better not to smack the rich because they might just clear off elsewhere.

So we see that there are people who encourage hard smacks on the most vulnerable to achieve their ends. What does that say about “EQUALITY”?

I doubt that the lady MPs (mostly ladies or lady-like males) have even thought for a second about the ‘inequality’ of smacking the poorest people with extortionate taxes on fags and booze.

But why has no one noticed?

I think that it is because of the distraction of epidemiology. Epidemiology is not ‘science’ – it is mathematics. It is about mathematical correlations, just in the same way that there was a rise in the divorce rate at the same time as the rise in the import of oranges into the UK. Similar correlations might well have occurred in France, Germany and Spain, but probably less in Spain because oranges or grown in Spain. Because of that fact in Spain, the correlation results from Spain (of which there are none) can be discounted. AKA, cherry-picking. But there is more to it. The fact is that the result from Spain ought to be paramount, because the disprove the association/causation. In Science, a ‘null’ result of experiments indicates failure of the theory. In epidemiology, there is little such discipline. But that is because no one has actually got round to taking epidemiology apart – just like ‘climate change’ blather. Epidemiology is not science – it is mathematics, pure and simple. Thus, the footballer who scores the most goals in a Premier League season might be considered to be the best player in the league. But that rather silly calculation does not account for the supply of opportunities to score from other players.

In the McTear Case, the Zealots did not dare to bring the results of the Doctors Study as evidence of smoking harm. Had they done so, they would have exposed the Doctors Study to legal scrutiny. I suspect that the worst scenario for the Zealots is legal scrutiny of the facts. One must ignore the peculiar American System of Justice. It seems that ‘precedent’ there has less authority than does ’emotion’.

Our cousins across the pond have different devils to combat, even though their devils are still those coldly calculated by the WHO etc to be most effective, in that place, at that time. All coldly and sadistically calculated. In the USA, the Zealots (well-paid Zealots) have calculated that they can make a lot of noise about smoking on beaches. Such noise should alert legislators to the other ‘noise’ about smoking in bars and pubs. That is, the dangers of smoking in pubs and bars from SHS is no greater than smoking on beaches.

====

I must to bed. But there is an over-riding idea in the above. ‘Cold calculation and Sadism’ go together. You cannot separate the two. Thus, in so far as the WHO coldly calculates the effect of increased taxation on tobacco, and thus upon smokers worldwide, it is cold and calculating, and ought to be anathema to politicians. How did the cold, calculating, elitist charlatans get control of the Health Dept? There is no doubt that the charlatans did so surreptitiously.

WHAT IS THE HEALTH SECRETARY DOING ABOUT THE WASTE OF RESOURCES IN ANTI-TOBACCO ZEALOTRY?

===

Close the whole thing down, Mr Health Secretary. Extract yourself from the morass. De-fund the sock-puppets.

Most of all, permit publicans and others to be ‘smoking’ if they wish to be. It has never been about health per se – it has always been about ‘the healthiest’ – prime beef to be exploited.

The poorest and weakest must be not-obviously ‘aborted’.

 

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: