Hysterical Tobacco Control

TC has gone very quiet at the moment. No press releases have appeared for some time. What has appeared, however, has been questions in Parliament demanding to know when the ban on smoking in cars and PP will be enacted. Needless to say, the “Government” (aka people like Andrew Black) have told ignorant politicians, pretending to be knowledgeable Ministers, what to say. Their words, as prescribed, as full of enthusiasm for banning smoking in cars and PP. Their statements, read out in Parliament, will be enthusiastic, will they not? What choice does a Minster have? He/She can hardly stand up in Parliament and say,  “Well, I don’t really agree with it myself, but this is what I have been told to say by “the experts””. This situation is rather odd – there must be some limiting thing which requires ‘black and white’. A Minister must either not proceed with some sort of prohibition or be enthusiastic about it. He/She cannot be neutral. That is politics.

——

But is that FACT not part of the problem? The reason is that that attitude knocks down to lower orders. Most ordinary MPs succumb to the current enthusiasms of Ministers, no matter how junior those Ministers might be. Needless to say, more senior ministers hide behind the junior ministers that they appointed.

The horror of this situation is that really appalling legislation can be passed, based upon puritanical ideals, enthusiastically supported by Terrified Politicians.

Look at this quote:

In any event, by 1927, each of the 14 states which had enacted prohibitory laws against cigarettes had repeated them (Neuberger, 1963: 52). Immediately thereafter these, states imposed taxes upon the once forbidden product (Robert, 1949: 256; Federal Trade Commission, 1970: 3).”

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc2b.htm

=====

There is no doubt. Politicians act upon their emotional feelings. It is hard to see the enactment of the total smoking ban in any other way. The ‘facts’ were ‘fixed’ to make Relative Risk far more important than it is. A minuscule risk is still minuscule even if it is doubled, and even if the risk is multiplied by fifty, it is minuscule.

—-

As we all know, UKIP has drawn attention to fundamentals. The blather is now meaningless. I am currently watching the shouting from Cameron and Miliband on TV (because it is on BBC News). They are both shouting. I do not know what they are shouting about, nor do I care. They should not be shouting. Shouting is emotional.

Several decades ago, I went to Manchester University to attend a lecture given by Enoch Powell about “Inflation”. I cannot remember the detail, but his arguments were very persuasive, and withstood criticisms from the floor. He said that Government creates inflation.

Consider this.

What do you think is the most valuable “asset” that exists in the UK. Is it our gold reserves? Is it Bank Deposits? Is it Shares on the Stock Market?

No. By far and away, vastly, it is the ‘Housing Stock’. The Government of the UK looks upon this vast ‘tangible asset’, on behalf of The People, as its own method of “security”. Our houses’belong’ to The Government, and to Tobacco Control for they are the underpining security which permits the persecution. Essentially, what this means is that our houses underpin the costs of ASH ET AL. The reason for that is that ASH is owned by the Royal College of Physicians, which is exists only because of the underlying government securities.

Money is guaranteed by ‘tangible’ assets. When ‘Doctors’ and ‘Professors’ misdirect money to their favourite pass-times, they deprive their students of value.

====

I know that the above is messy, but it is essentially true. Only UKIP has the courage to contemplate exiting the EU. Why? Because Cameron ET AL do not have the courage.

The Big Problem with the EU is that it has running the 100 metres rather than the 10,000 metres. It thinks that People will do as it dictates. They will not.

 

 

 

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: