The ‘Raw’ Tobacco Consultation

Well, I’ve sent in my response. Needless to say, it is unlikely to have any effect, but it is worth while if only to call into question the fundamental ideas. You see, the consultation is not about whether or not people who import tobacco leaves should be allowed to do so. It is about what is the best way to stop them doing so. Thus, the questions are trick questions.They ask, “Here is the way that we intend to stop people importing tobacco leaves, even though the EU rules describe ‘raw’ tobacco as agricultural produce, and we would like to know if you can think of a better way”

I have responded to such questionnaires before, and the only way that I could answer was to say, “You should not be doing this at all” Well, that is OK, and it certainly worked as regards plain packaging with the delivery of 500,000 signatories against it. But I’ll bet a pound to a penny that the signatories did not answer the original questions in the so-called consultation. The trick of re-trying consultations depends upon just changing the questions a bit, as happened with the re-consultation on PP.

My solution to that problem was to write a ‘proper’ letter, which is now in the post. I pointed out that their presuppositions were false. For example, the introduction to the consultation quoted the FCTC’s demand that all things concerned with ‘raw’ tobacco, like storage, transport and machinery, should be regulated. Easy to say, but impossible to do. No ‘jurisdiction’ would be stupid enough to try it. For example, imagine ships carrying hundreds of tons of tobacco having to check every detail of every ounce of tobacco in every container. Not that the proposed regulations demand that. No… They demand that the recipients of the goods check the contents of the containers and the destinations of the contents.

It is precisely the impossibility illustrated in the last sentence which renders the proposed import registration rules useless. Legitimate importers are above board and supply a demand which is also above board. The powers-that-be intend to force importers to do the work involved in checking what the ‘end user’ will do with the produce. It must be clear to anyone with any sense that that is impossible in the real world. But the trick is to refuse registration to those who cannot comply, which will be everyone.

When such legitimate importers are driven out via over-regulation, who will replace them? Criminal gangs will not use legitimate means of importation. Nor will they ‘self-regulate’. For example, it has been said that someone tried to use one of the small importers to order a large quantity of tobacco for delivery to a Chinese ice-cream factory. Whether that is true or not, I do not know, but it illustrates the point. If it is true, then the importer would immediately smell a rat and have nothing to do with it.


My approach was to ignore the questions and address the justifications. I mentioned the FCTC above, which was quoted as justification. It is not justification since it has no force unless States decide, for themselves, to follow it, and, especially, that the EU has decided to treat tobacco as an agricultural product which can and should be freely traded without hindrance. Thus, if criminal gangs import tobacco and make and sell tobacco products, it is THEY who commit an offence. It is extremely unlikely that they would use bona fide traders in small quantities of tobacco as their vehicle for importation. Most of them are not that stupid.

There are two things which are as clear as daylight:

1. The proposed regs are a cop-out in that the attack people who are NOT involved in smuggling.

2. They are contrary to free trade agreements in the EU.

I shall be surprised if the regs are adopted since they are bound to attract criticism from EU exporters such as Poland. Surely?

Enough. But it is much more complicated in that the Zealots wish to use the description of ‘tobacco products’ in the law as though it applies to produce which are not tobacco PRODUCTS. Tobacco is not a tobacco PRODUCT.

Frankly, if the proposal are not dropped in their entirety, I shall be surprised. They seem to me to be much like the Zealot proposals for park and street smoking bans.


Actually, we should love these extremes, because they illustrate the prior stupid extremes. The smoking ban was the ultimate extreme. I doubt that the Zealots realised (nor did I!) that the extreme nature of the smoking ban has made all their subsequent efforts silly or cruel. It is only a question of time before the Arch-Zealots are arraigned in the Courts for “Conspiracy to provoke ‘malfeasance in a public office”. I read about a criminal case in the Mirror (?) in which a couple of journalists were indicted and tried for “Conspiracy to provoke malfeasance by public officers”. They had been accused of trying to bribe a couple of police officers. They were acquitted.


“Conspiracy to provoke malfeasance in public office” is something that we should concentrate upon. Such provocation has been amply illustrated in the New Orleans controversy. A paediatrician stood up and claimed that third-hand smoke (tobacco residues on ceilings) threatened babies. It would have been difficult at the time to realise that this person was ‘conspiring to provoke councillors to act ‘criminally’.

Such offences are becoming normalised due to the lassitude that the Tobacco Control Industry has acquired. The snus ban, anywhere in the EU except Sweden, is a case in point. That ban, along with the ecig virtual ban, illustrates that Tobacco Control is hopelessly corrupt. Thus, anyone who supports Tobacco Control is ‘conspiring to provoke maleficence in public office’ among politicians when they demand bans without proof of harm. What the politicians do is not important. It is the conspiracy, without justification, which is important.

Is it any wonder that, despite the elapse of some eight years, that the smoking ban is still so controversial? No it is not! It was always ‘a conspiracy’, and it came about as a result of a ‘conspiracy to provoke maleficence in public office’. That is, ASH ET AL deliberately set out to misinform  MPs  and to ‘bribe’ them them into PASSING LAWS. The ‘bribe’ was the surety of votes in the next GE, and ‘blessings’. Of course, as soon as they became ex-MPs, the glorification would cease, and they would have to clear out their own stables.


Tobacco Control must be destroyed. It is malevolent. It is a collective psychopath. It is a cruel, vindictive, apparition. It is a ghost. It is worthless and irrelevant to the desires of the people.


I have been reading about ‘Bayers Theorem’ this evening. All that matters is that statistics can be massively corrupted as indicators of the future. It is very late and I must to bed. Suffice to say, for tonight, that we fight on.



2 Responses to “The ‘Raw’ Tobacco Consultation”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    “Tobacco Control must be destroyed. It is malevolent. It is a collective psychopath”

    The psychopathy has been beautifully explored by Stephanie Stahl at

    I have often gotten wonderful results on news discussion boards when I suggest that the more obvious sufferers of the condition seek professional help.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: