Bloated Bureaucracy

Around 300 AD, the Roman Empire began to collapse. The process almost certainly began earlier than that, but the cause, as I have read, was that the bureaucracy in Rome became bloated. If it became bloated, it must have been consuming resources over and above what was required, and thus depriving more important activities, such as the armed forces, of sustenance. Thus, when tribes outside the Roman Empire started to eat away at the rim of the Empire, there were not the troops available to fight back. Thus, there was only one course of action, which was to retreat.

 

And, there was no way back, because the systems in place were too corrupt.

=====

There has been something nagging at my mind for some time which I could not quite pinpoint. In fact, it was an ‘unknown unknown’. But, earlier today, the thought crystallised – sort of.

It revolves around the enthusiasm with which Health Ministers have decided to persecute smokers. First, Milton MP embraced ASH. Why? Then Soubry MP embraced the EU Tobacco Control Directive (while not knowing much about it since she believed that ecig control had been dropped). Why? Now we have Ellison MP, equally enthusiastic about persecuting smokers. Why? How can people who make substantially greater contributions that other taxpayers to the the Treasury be so defiled? It is almost as thought smokers were being raped, because they were slappers and ‘asking for it’, and that lots of fake charities were demanding that these ‘slappers’ should be raped even more, and that Government passed laws to legitimise the raping.

Why is Government legalising the raping of smokers? What have we done wrong? Why are we wicked?

But the intellectual corruption of politicians can be illustrated in the following way. William Hague, an experience minister and former Leader of the Conservative Party, presently “First Sec of State and Leader of the House of Commons”, when asked a question in the House about ecigs had this to say:

 “I agree with my hon. Friend that e-cigarettes have the potential to support public health objectives and to support smokers who want to cut down or quit. It is important, too, for users to have confidence in the quality of the products, which must be licensed like other nicotine replacement therapies. I am not sure when we shall have the opportunity to debate this, but my hon. Friend can of course make the case for it in all the usual ways.”

Thus, Hague reveals himself to be either a parrot or a very stupid person. I do not believe that he is stupid, and so I believe that he is a parrot.

No… Ecigs DO NOT need to be ‘licensed like other nicotine replacement therapies’, because they are not ‘nicotine replacement therapies’. They are products which individuals DECIDE to adopt in place of tobacco, and which they find enjoyable.

—–

The failure of TC to accept ecigs (in fact, the antagonism) implies, in my mind, that there are much bigger issues involved; that anti-tobacco is only a small part of the overall plan.

Would it not be to the advantage of us all if the Top People told us what they think is best?

 

 

 

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Bloated Bureaucracy”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “No… Ecigs DO NOT need to be ‘licensed like other nicotine replacement therapies’, because they are not ‘nicotine replacement therapies’.”

    Sort of like the antis claiming that they have a ‘right to breathe smoke-free air’, before bans/laws have been passed that would give them that ‘right’.

    They mis-lead by putting the cart before the horse.

    Their only honest claim would be that people should have the right to breathe smoke-free air.

    The antis claim that smokers’ right to smoke is not listed in Constitutions and thus is no better than their right to breathe clean air.

    But; absent laws to the contrary, smokers have the right to smoke and, by extension, smoky air is also legal.

    • garyk30 Says:

      That sounds dis-jointed.
      I wish I had a better sounding,more logical, way of making those statements. 😦

      • junican Says:

        LOL.
        I suppose that the Constitution is unable to state a clause, “The People have a right to breath clean air” because the Constitution cannot control the cleanliness of the air. In fact, I doubt that the word ‘clean’ can apply to ‘the air’. When these people demand ‘clean’ air, do they mean artificial air – a pure mixture of oxygen and nitrogen? What is ‘clean air’? Oh, just a mo’, air contains about 70% water vapour. Should that water vapour be purified water?
        I would say that a reasonable demand would be ‘air safe to breath’, which has been the justification of Clean Air Acts in the UK.
        As we know, and as some of us will experience on Christmas Day, candles are often lit for special celebrations (birthday cakes?). Does the smoke from those candles render the air unsafe to breath?
        We see again and again, the Zealots trying to achieve ownership of ecigs by giving them a false purpose, ie. ‘cessation devices’ and ‘nicotine delivery systems’. NO. The idea is to replace THE PLEASURE of smoking with an experience as similar as possible to that PLEASURE.

  2. graham Entwistle Says:

    Hi. Back again pouring over your blogs. At some point I must try to get over to Bolton (not exactly a mammoth task, I could almost throw a rock from my front door and hit the rebock stadium).

    The zealotry of tc with regards to ecigs really does highlight how badly we have all been mislead over the years – we’ve managed to ditch combustion, and the vapers like myself who prefer to use high power devices with lots of airflow have pretty much ditched nicotine. The way we use them basically means that anything over the merest suggestion of nic gives us an instant headache.

    To try to quantify that. A heavy smoker looking to switch using a generation 1 or 2 starter kit would likely choose 24 or 36 mg liquid (2.4 or 3.6 % nic/volume) I now mix at 3mg (.3% nic/volume). I’ve gone to zero, but made a conscious decision that I want/like a little nic in my life :).

    Regardless of all this. And the ever increasing evidence that nicotine is far from an undesirable part of a healthy balanced diet. The imbeciles in tobacco control cannot stop. Their pharma industry pay masters cannot allow themselves to not have the monopoly on nicotine dispersal. Hence the war on big tobacco, and the absolute hatred they have for ecigs.

    Its actually starting to verge on the rediculous, we know that the only potential issues are the flavorings, and even then all the risky levels fall below all available workplace guidelines for daily exposure and significantly below the levels for lit tobacco (the only relevant basis, since we are still “smokers” with no interest in becoming “ex smokers” all we do is a little harm reduction).

    They do still however hound us, block any advocates, cry wolf about bullying and orchestration of responses and generally do what they always have – abuse their positions of trust when they have no right to their self riteous claims of pious zealotry.

    Anyway. I’m ranting now.

    Merry Christmas to all and have a happy new year.

    Graham gords1001.

    • junican Says:

      The critical thing is that you decided what you want to do. If you believed the propaganda of the Zealots about smoking, that was your decision. But mixed up in all this decision-making is the matter of costs.
      It is in that aspect that we can reasonably assume is the reason for the Zealots antipathy to vaping. They talk about nicotine, ignore the lack of harm therefrom, and are horrified that they and Big Pharma are losing control of cessation.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: