Illness Created by The Tobacco Control Industry

OK. I exaggerate a bit by using the word ‘illness’. But if The TC Industry can manipulate the word ‘disease’ to mean ailment at all, then I can also use the word ‘illness’ to mean whatever I want it to mean. I was doing a bit of gardening yesterday, and, as a result, I was a little stiff in the hands and legs this morning. Not much, and it soon wore off, but I had a little pain. Thus, I had an ‘illness’.

Last night, after I had written the post about Customs’ plans to criminalise the import of agricultural products, and on going to bed, I was quite ill. I could not sleep. I felt depressed and weighed down. I am a little old man who just wants to amuse himself in his remaining few years of life. Part of that amusement is enjoying my hobby of growing a few tobacco plants and buying a few kilos of dried tobacco leaf from time to time and experimenting with tastes and blends. It is in my nature to be as self’sufficient as possible. I have a little saying of my own. If a sock has a hole in it and you consider the area of the material of the sock, you will probably find that 99% of the sock is good. Only 1% is bad, where the hole is. So you sew up the hole, and the sock is then 100% whole again, even though it has shrunk by 1%. (Some reader might think that I am more ill than I am letting on)

For some reason, I seem to have this mental aberration which finds the fixing of broken things intriguing. It is not a shortage of cash – I am relatively comfortable in that respect. I had a 2 litre Ford Capri Sports for 20 years. It was a real, real pain when certain parts of the bodywork (probably about 5%) rotted. Unfortunately, the places where the rot was, were rather important places. It was with great sadness that I had it ‘put down’.

What depressed me was a part of the ‘Consultation’  which many would probably never even notice:

Question 1: Does the proposed definition encompass all forms of raw tobacco which could be used to manufacture tobacco products?
Question 2: Should plants which have not been harvested but are still growing in containers such as pots or bags also be included to prevent an alternative route to evade duty?

The whole document is here:

The ‘definition’ which is mentioned is the Customs definition of the phrase ‘raw tobacco’.

As far as I know, there is no mention anywhere in law relating to duty on tobacco products of ‘raw tobacco’. The document uses the lose wording of The Act to justify this new entity which the document has created (‘raw tobacco’). Here is the section as quoted by the document:

3. Definition of Raw Tobacco.
8. The Tobacco Products (Descriptions of Products) Order 2003 (SI 2003/1471) sets out definitions of cigarettes, cigars, hand-rolling tobacco and other smoking tobacco. It is the definitions of hand-rolling tobacco and other smoking tobacco which are of primary significance here, and these are as follows:
Hand-rolling tobacco.
(1) References to hand-rolling tobacco in the Act include any product that would, but for the reference to hand-rolling tobacco in article 7(1) below, be other smoking tobacco and—
(a )in which more than 25% by weight of the tobacco particles have a cut width of less than 1.5 millimetres, or
(b) that is sold or intended to be sold for making into cigarettes by hand, or
(c )that is of a kind used for making into cigarettes by hand.
(2) In this regulation—
(a) the references to “making into cigarettes by hand” in paragraph (1)(b) and (c) above include making into cigarettes by hand with the aid of a mechanical device, and
(b) the use for making into cigarettes referred to in paragraph (1)(c) above must amount to more than occasional use but need not amount to common use.
Other smoking tobacco7.

(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, references to other smoking tobacco in the Act include any product that is not cigarettes, cigars, or hand-rolling tobacco and comprises—
(a) tobacco that has been cut or otherwise split, twisted or pressed into blocks, and is capable of being smoked without further industrial processing,
(b) tobacco refuse put up for retail sale that can be smoked.
(2) References to other smoking tobacco in the Act include products consisting in whole or in part of substances other than tobacco that otherwise conform to a description in paragraph (1) above, unless they are herbal smoking products.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), “tobacco refuse” means the remnants of tobacco leaves and the by-products of the processing of tobacco or the manufacture of tobacco products.

Note the bolded bit. It says that substances which are not tobacco are tobacco. What does that mean? Are tea leaves, which have been placed into a paper tube, tobacco? Is a tea bag a tobacco product? If one chopped up a piece of string into tiny bits and put it into a small paper bag, would the ‘product’ be a tobacco product?

You see, I know that before the 2003 order quoted above, a couple of the provisions above were absent. The original Act was specific about what was a tobacco product. It was a product which was ‘manufactured’ by tobacco companies and sold. The Governments which we elected was quite happy to gain lots of tax income from tobacco taxes, and, at the time, tobacco taxes were not ‘sin’ taxes. They were of the nature of ‘luxury’ taxes, which also applied to alcohol. But even that description is not really correct. The original tobacco and alcohol duties applied only to imports, and were intended to damage the economies of nations with which we were at war, or nearly so.

There is no doubt in my mind that the amendments to the definitions of tobacco products were driven by people like Doll and the former Chief Medical Office, Liam Donaldson. There have been other changes which have been sneaked in using various tricks (eg. Using a Finance Act to create a law which states that ‘tobacco products’ can only be made in an approved factory) which have almost certainly been sneaked in by tobacco control.

A couple of years ago, I investigated the processes of sneaking in these various generalised provisions. What we are seeing now is the implementation of persecution which the provisions were intended to produce all along.

But there are errors. In the quote above, we see this statement:

(b) that is sold or intended to be sold for making into cigarettes by hand, or……..

referring to RYO tobacco. “That is sold or intended to be sold“. Thus, the element of trade or commerce is evident.


Another interesting aspect of this consultation is the ‘either or’ nature of the two ideas. The preferred option is to force anyone who wishes to import leaf to register, even though dried tobacco leaf is agricultural produce, and thus freely traded without interference. The alternative suggestion is the Irish decision, which involves stricter checking of imports, but not registration. One might ask why the Irish Government went for that method. Was it because it was advised that ‘registration’ would be against free trade as agreed within the EU? It certainly seems to me that EU law, as accepted by the Nations of the EU, demands that obstacles must not be placed in the way of free trade. The consultation document states without doubt that citizens of the EU will be refused registration if the tyrants decide so. And they can decide so on a whim, just because they feel like it.

These provisions mirror the Australian 1911 provisions, in which the movement and exchange of tobacco plant seeds and plants was forbidden without approval. Note – 1911. In recent times, those ancient provisions, long abandoned, have been resurrected to persecute smokers in Australia. In Australia, individuals who have applied for permission to grow tobacco plants have been refused. Strange, is it not, that you do not need permission to grow apple trees, the fruit of which can be used to make intoxicating cider; nor do you need permission to grow vines, from which wine can be made; nor do you need permission to buy the ingredients needed to make beer; even the law about making spirits is not clear at all.


I intend to make a submission to the consultation, but it cannot be in the form of answers to questions in the form. I am still not sure. I do not have the legal expertise to question the intents of the lawmakers. But there is one thing in my mind. If, anywhere in the EU, citizens can can purchase dried tobacco leaf without hindrance, then the same should apply to all EU citizens. The agreed laws about free trade demand that it should be so. However, there are criminal gangs who misuse the free trade laws. The critical difference between we individuals and the criminal gangs is that we do not sell our produce. That is the essential reason that we have rights as individuals to be self-sufficient. It is absolutely wrong that The State can dictate that we can only enjoy tobacco which has been processed by tobacco companies. It is a double monopoly.


We all know that our political system stinks. One of the many reasons for this situation has been the constant, but probably unintended, creation of monopolies. What makes things worse is that many of these monopolies were originally well intended, by have been take over by charlatans, who make themselves rich thereby. When Government (by which I mean our elected representatives) is forced to conform by any special interest group, such as the medical profession, tyranny ensues.

The tyranny is plain and obvious, although it is not clearly visible. It is the theft of fruits of our work via monopolistic taxes, duties, contributions to the EU, contributions to the WHO, contributions to the UN, useless ‘studies’ of the atmosphere, useless studies of tobacco, NO useful studies of the effects of old age and death thereby.

I do not know what the answer is, because I am ignorant about the effects of monopolistic Government. Why is it that learned Professors and Doctors are not analysing the effects of Government monopoly and the effects of MP compliance with the monopoly? After all, the reason for MPs is to STOP to monopolistic control. That is what MPs are for. The creation of a Parliament was to STOP the King from acting as a monopoly.


Perhaps I shall not be as ill tonight when I go to bed. Perhaps my depression will be eased by the sure and certain knowledge that the EU commissariat will come down on the Zealots who are buggering up the EU programme like ten thousand tons of bricks.


But what of the consultation? What should we do?

In my opinion, we should not answer the questions. That is what the Zealots want us to do. We should complain that our RIGHTS as EU citizens are being damaged. As citizens we have THE RIGHT to import dried tobacco leaves, and to sell them on to willing buyers. Just as shops sell grapes to willing buyers, for cash, who might evade alcohol duties by making their own wine, so should people be able to buy dried tobacco leaves. That action, in itself, is not an evasion or avoidance of duty, since nothing is sold.


Persons who import dried tobacco leaf must appeal to the EU directly and ignore any constraints which seem to inhibit such complaints. The reason that they can do so is because any objections to their actions come from monopolies (aka Tobacco Control), which, by definition, are the same as Tobacco Companies.


Thus, it makes sense for anyone who legitimately trades in dried tobacco plant leaves to REFUSE to accept criminal status. Further, exporters must demand that obstacles to trade must not occur.

There is a world of difference between criminal gangs who make ‘tobacco products’ to sell, and individuals who want to be self-sufficient.


But history has shown that the edifice will collapse under its own weight. So far, Tobacco Control funding seems to be infinite, but it will not always be so. The end will start at the beginning, when citizens regain control of their own destinies. Bar owners will not be forced to forbid smoking and bar staff will opt to accept the minuscule possibility that alcohol fumes will kill them if they live to the age of 151 years old.


We have seen it all before, again and again.







16 Responses to “Illness Created by The Tobacco Control Industry”

  1. harleyrider1978 Says:

    When your entire argument is based upon a junk theory like risk factors then you can pretty much claim anything you want like little green men smoking around me from mars caused my FILL IN BLANK! Its all smoke and mirrors starting with the Framingham heart study in 1948 where the term risk factor was first coined and used,after that the lifestyle wars began. Funny its also the same year the united nations was created………….

  2. harleyrider1978 Says:

    The Framingham Heart Study is the origin of the term risk factor. Before the Framingham Heart Study, doctors had little sense of prevention. In the 1950s, it was believed that clogging of arteries and narrowing of arteries (atherosclerosis, arteriosclerosis) was a normal part of aging and occurred universally as people became older. High blood pressure (hypertension) and elevated serum cholesterol (hypercholesterolemia) were also seen as normal consequences of aging in the 1950s, and no treatment was initiated

    Follow up the mummy study showing aging was in fact what casued these things all along…………

    Mummies’ clogged arteries take smoking, fatty foods, lethargy out of the mix

    By Tom Valeo, Times Correspondent

    Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:30am

    You do everything right: You exercise every day, include lots of fruits and vegetables in your diet, never smoke, minimize the stress in your life and take medication to keep your cholesterol and blood pressure under control. You’re preventing modern life from ruining your heart, right? • Well, maybe modern life isn’t as much of a problem as merely living. CT scans of 137 ancient mummies from three continents show that our ancestors had plaque in their arteries, too, even though they never smoked, never tasted ice cream or pork rinds, and had no choice but to exercise vigorously every day of their lives.

    According to the study, which appeared recently in the Lancet, at least one-third of the mummies, who lived as long as 5,000 years ago, had arteries that had narrowed as a result of atherosclerosis — the buildup of fatty deposits in the arterial wall. Apparently the cardiovascular system has a tendency to clog up over time.

    “Our research shows that we are all at risk for atherosclerosis, the disease that causes heart attacks and strokes,” said Gregory Thomas, medical director of the MemorialCare Heart & Vascular Institute, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, and one of the authors of the study. “The data we gathered about individuals from the prehistoric cultures of ancient Peru and the Native Americans living along the Colorado River and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands is forcing us to look for other factors that may cause heart disease.”

    The diet of the mummies varied widely, but contained ample protein and vegetables (and presumably no cupcakes or pork rinds). Aside from the few Egyptian mummies who lived their lives as pampered royalty, these ancient people used their muscles constantly.

    Yet, the atherosclerosis was found in mummies who died in what we today would consider middle age (almost none made it to 60). And just as today, their arteries became more narrow as they got older. CT scans of modern people have demonstrated that after the age of 60 for men and 70 for women, some degree of atherosclerosis is all but universal. One large study found that teens ages 15 to 19 showed early signs of atherosclerosis, and 50 percent already had conspicuous accumulations of plaque.

    “All of us age in every tissue of our body,” says Dr. Donald LaVan, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a spokesman for the American Heart Association. “It’s just a question of how rapidly it happens. There’s nothing you can do to stop aging. All you’re trying to do is prevent it from advancing faster than it should.”

    The authors of the paper agree. “Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern humans raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease,” they concluded.

    So what can we do to thwart that predisposition?

    Above all, don’t smoke, says LaVan, and engage in regular physical activity.

    “After that, we’re in the realm of treating disease,” he says. “If your lipids are up or you have hypertension, take care of it. If you have problems with rhythm disturbances, that must be treated, too, because it impairs the ability of heart to pump efficiently. We’re looking at common sense here, but getting patients to do these things is tough.”

    Then followed up with this:

    Looks like even the heart disease and food causation is being tossed to the GUTTER with the rest of the JUNK SCIENCE!

    Heart March 17, 2014, 5:00 pm 236 Comments

    Study Questions Fat and Heart Disease Link


    Many of us have long been told that saturated fat, the type found in meat, butter and cheese, causes heart disease. But a large and exhaustive new analysis by a team of international scientists found no evidence that eating saturated fat increased heart attacks and other cardiac events.

    The new findings are part of a growing body of research that has challenged the accepted wisdom that saturated fat is inherently bad for you and will continue the debate about what foods are best to eat.

    For decades, health officials have urged the public to avoid saturated fat as much as possible, saying it should be replaced with the unsaturated fats in foods like nuts, fish, seeds and vegetable oils.

    But the new research, published on Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, did not find that people who ate higher levels of saturated fat had more heart disease than those who ate less. Nor did it find less disease in those eating higher amounts of unsaturated fat, including monounsaturated fat like olive oil or polyunsaturated fat like corn oil.

    “My take on this would be that it’s not saturated fat that we should worry about” in our diets, said Dr. Rajiv Chowdhury, the lead author of the new study and a cardiovascular epidemiologist in the department of public health and primary care at Cambridge University.

    But Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said the findings should not be taken as “a green light” to eat more steak, butter and other foods rich in saturated fat. He said that looking at individual fats and other nutrient groups in isolation could be misleading, because when people cut down on fats they tend to eat more bread, cold cereal and other refined carbohydrates that can also be bad for cardiovascular health.

  3. harleyrider1978 Says:

    Lifestyle factors of people with exceptional longevity.

    Einstein College recently studied folks who lived past age 95. The reluctantly reported result: “People who live to 95 or older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits.”

    Einstein College press release:… … 78&pt=news

    Did you notice in link above that they just state that the very old smoked about as much as did people who died younger, with no detail given, although detail is given regarding eating, boozing, exercise, and so on? Well, when it came to publishing the abstract with the National Institutes of Health, they ignore smoking results entirely! They do say that smoking was studied, but make no mention whatsoever that smoking was not shown to impair longevity: again, as with the press release, precise detail is given regarding other studied factors, but when it came to smoking — the holy taboo of all holy taboos — they simply couldn’t bear even to mention their own finding!

    Here it is: the official NIH abstract:

    They’ve already started an even larger study this past summer

  4. harleyrider1978 Says:

    Cousin we have been attacked with a lifestyles war since the inception of the UNITED NATIONS and no doubt Wilsons League of nations had in its bowels the same plans that finally emerged thru the WHO and other UN depts………It was the progressive answer to their world utopia.

  5. harleyrider1978 Says:

    A post-mortem for wellness programs: What went wrong?


    Commentary: The obituary for traditional wellness programs has been widely published (see National Public Radio, Health Affairs, and Kaiser Health News) though perhaps not universally acknowledged. Perhaps an autopsy is in order. What indeed went wrong?

  6. harleyrider1978 Says:

    The surrender came in the story about 2/3rds of cancers due to BAD LUCK…………….Get that they are against a wall but still trying to hang on to something they can blame on lifestyles. I am sure we will see several new studies coming very soon that blow the wholes damned supposed sound medical beliefs out of the water because tose supposed sounf medical principles were all BULL CHIT TO START WITH and they knew it. Simply using it to try and make money for pharma by trying to make a 60 year olds vital signs and physiological readings always be the same as a 20 year olds trying desperately to deny aging as a reason for ill health or anything else. yet its old age that’s the greatest factor for getting cancer or disease to begin with not lifestyles…………

  7. Smoking Hot Says:

    Excuse me Harleyrider1978 but what have your comments to do with the article? This “Consultation” is the issue at hand and whilst your comments may indeed have important points l’m sure you’d agree none of it has anything to do with the article.

    The object of the article (and mine) is to try and inform people directly effected by this consultation that they should respond to it and how to do it. Unfortunately your comments hijack the article and anyone who decided to read the comments will be somewhat dismayed to see that the comments are not helpful to them regards this consultation at all.

    May l suggest that you start your own blog and raise your points there? Indeed you may have a blog but l am unaware of it. N2D shall link to any blog you have.

    l value your effort regarding the fight against Tobacco Control but there is a place for it and in this instance the “comments” in this particular article is not it.

    Please don’t take offence at my comment … it is truly constructive criticism.


    • harleyrider1978 Says:

      Illness Created by The Tobacco Control Industry

      Whats the title state………..illnesses……….my entire posts were directed at the CREATED and INVENTED illnesses created out of thin air by tobacco control. That’s what it has to do with it and I start from the beginning time up to today.

      • Smoking Hot Says:

        I’m in agreement with Zaphod, you do this so often that l too no longer read your comments as they seldom have anything directly relevant to the OP.
        In truth, if you did this on our N2D blog l would remove them as to do otherwise would stop/inhibit discussion.

  8. Smoking Hot Says:

    l believe you are wrong to say not to answer this consultation … we have to! lf we don’t then they’ve won hands down because they will say that there was a consultation but no-one answered so there must be no objections.

    Sure there are questions that are loaded but you can reply to them as ‘not valid’. There are however questions that you can reply with objections.

    Your points about complaining to the EU are valid but they take too much time and by the time they do answer all these HMRC proposals will have been implemented.

    we are doing a ‘cut and paste’ answer to this consultation that will be up shortly. One can either use it as is or add or delete certain answers.

    The point is … we have to lodge our objections!


  9. Zaphod Says:

    SH, I don’t think Junican is saying “Don’t answer the consultation”, he’s saying “don’t answer the questions in the form”. He says “I intend to make a submission to the consultation.”

    It can be a very effective strategy, but only for those who are able and willing to do it the hard way.

    As Junican eloquently puts it, “The difference, which the consultation asks your opinion of, is whether you think that people who want to buy dried tobacco plant leaf should be branded on the forehead or on the arse.” (By answering the question, we accept the branding.)

    I hope readers will respond, but not many of us have Junicans stamina for deconstructing such bollocks.

    HMRC are hoping to say, “We had a consultation and very few raised any objection.” They will probably succeed in this, but we should all do what we can to thwart them.

    Junican, am I right? Is it better that we ordinary mortals answer the questions rather than do nothing?

    (I also noticed that tea bags fit the definition. Also that if tobacco were advertised as being grown hydroponically, it would not have been “harvested from the ground”, and no regulations would apply?)

    Harleyrider, you do a lot of good research, but I now skip all your comments because you don’t seem to read the article you are hijacking. It’s very irritating.

    • harleyrider1978 Says:

      You already know the consultation process is a fixed issue. Its just window dressing to make it look like the democratic process was followed. Look at the kids in car consultation from before or plain packs we kicked their asses yet it made no difference.

      The Nazis even went as far as to make over what was it 300,000 faked emails and phone calls all originating back to [ublic health depts. and other government buildings involved with health in the UK.

  10. junican Says:

    @ SH and Z.

    You will have noticed in my post that I said, “I intend to make a submission to the consultation, but it cannot be in the form of answers to questions in the form. I am still not sure” . When you look at the questions, they are, in effect, asking whether or not you think that there is a better way to criminalise importers than their suggested one. Your answers can only be in the nature of, “Yes, yours is the best way”, or “No, here are my suggestions for a better way”. I am thinking along the lines of an answer which says, “Both if your suggestions are contrary to EU law”, but, as I said, I do not know whether that is true or not. One thing is certain, the proposals have nothing to do with health.
    I’m still wrestling with the problem and am awaiting your ‘fair copy’.

  11. Rose Says:

    I hope you feel better soon, Junican.

    • junican Says:

      Thank you, Rose. But my ‘illness’ was a contrived ‘illness’, as I described, in much the same way as Tobacco Control, years ago, converted the commonly understood meaning of the word ‘disease’ to cover conditions brought on by the failings of the body due to old age, as well as contagious diseases.
      My ‘illness’ was an intellectual one! Isaac Newton, for example, had an ‘intellectual illness’ when his observations of the movement of planets were attacked. He decided not to publish his ‘Principia’ for about 15 years before doing so.
      It is more about disappointment than anything else!

  12. magnetic01 Says:

    The Anti-Tobacco Racket: History Revisited

    Anti-tobacco/smoking has had a long, sordid, 400+ year history. Pretty well all of the antismoking crusades have been prohibitionist, usually banning the sale/use of tobacco. There was one notable exception – King James I (‘tis he who commissioned the King James Bible translation) in the early-1600s. Jimmy did a few things. He penned the antismoking piece, “A Counterblaste To Tobacco”, a work loaded with inflammatory drivel written in ye olde English. It was important to clearly indicate moral outrage because this provides the pretext for taking action on the tobacco “issue”. But Jimmy didn’t prohibit tobacco/smoking. Armed with the appearance of moral high ground, he banned the growing of tobacco in England and arranged for the importation of tobacco from Virginia, America. Banning the growing of tobacco in England reduced the risk of locally produced contraband. So, King Jim manufactured a monopoly on tobacco (entering through imports) in England. And didn’t Jimmy have a field day with the monopoly. He set a ration on the sale of tobacco per person and super-inflated the price of tobacco. He was robbing his tobacco-users blind. What a good “christian” king. Unfortunately the racket had a limited life. The mass-scale robbery invited contraband. Tired of losing revenue to contraband, Jim eventually relented and lowered his price.

    Fast-forward some 400 years to the island nation of Australia. Since the early-1900s, growing tobacco in Australia has required a government permit. The only ones issued these permits were tobacco companies.

    Australia bought into the antismoking hysteria in the 1980s. The leaders of the current antismoking crusade are prohibitionists. Their goal, as it was in early-1900s America, is to destroy the tobacco industry. The prohibitionists have brought to the table the “moral outrage”. Having partnered with the prohibitionists, the moral outrage permits the government to act on the tobacco “issue”. The beginnings were small. The goal was to put the heat on the “evil” tobacco industry – banning of advertising, constantly referred to as the “merchants of death”, etc. By 2014, the tobacco companies have been chased out of Australia. The tobacco companies no longer contract tobacco growing and their last, small manufacturing plant is about to close. All tobacco products are now imported into Australia. The growing of tobacco in Australia, based on early-1900s law, is effectively banned; tobacco-growing permits are not issued to individuals. If someone wants [legal] tobacco, they have to buy the officially-imported, government-tax paid stuff. The Australian government finds itself in a manufactured position not unlike King James. It has a monopoly on [imported] tobacco in Australia and has complete control over its price through excise tax. Unlike Jimmy, the government hasn’t even had to get its hands dirty sourcing imports. It uses tobacco companies as offshore growers/manufacturers that then import tobacco products into Australia. And, just like Jimbo, isn’t the Australian government having a field day with the monopoly. It just keeps jacking up the taxes on tobacco. The price for premium brands is already at $AUD200 per carton. It’s, again, mass-scale robbery.

    Britain now too seems to be doing a James I…. again.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: