Tories to Bring In Plain Packaging

When I read about the Tory decision to go for PP  in a twitter comment by Dick Puddlecote, and subsequently on the Daily Telegraph site, I was astonished. I really, really thought that the Tories would ride out the storm created by their enemies, the Medical Profession, until the GE intervened. But it seems that they have succumbed.

But let me say, straight away, that I have no feeling of disappointment. Frankly, I do not give a shit about PP in itself. For example, if I wanted to buy a good car, I would not look at the prettiness of the colour. I would look for evidence of reputation and construction. If cars were mandated to have scenes of car crashes and mutilated bodies painted on them on a background of dull brown, that would not change my assessment of the quality of the car, and, if I wanted a car, I would still buy one. I might even get the car resprayed, if I felt like it (which is the equivalent of transferring the fags from an ugly packet to a pretty packet or cig case). Nor personally do I give a toss about smoking in cars with kids present; it matters not a damn to me, even though I oppose the idea. I oppose the idea because a freedom lost for anyone is a freedom lost for all.

So why have the Tories (I discount Liberal opinion because the LibDems are a busted flush) acquiesced? Umm…. Perhaps the LibDems are not such a busted flush as yet. Perhaps the LibDem leadership were intent upon their own pre-emptive strike against the Tories before the election, for their own political ends, by condemning the Tories for not “obeying” the expressed wish of Parliament.

If those arguments are true (of nearly so), then ‘Freedom’ is just a political football, to be kicked here and there until the football is burst. That is the way that things are going. That is why a revolution is inevitable. Ultimately, when the penny drops, muslims, christians, hindus, agnostics and atheists, etc, will have to combine to get rid of tyranny, for, as I said, a freedom lost for one is a freedom lost for all. I find it hard to believe that The People are unable to see the creeping imposition of tyranny. Perhaps there is a ‘tipping point’ which will come one day, and overturn the status quo.

But the Tories must surely have had some expectation which is immediately beneficial to bother introducing PP and the cars ban. Could that be to create an ‘equal playing field’? Or even a voting advantage, if they believe that 70% of voters are desperately demanding PP and car smoking bans? Surely they know that even the non-smoking 75% of voters do not really give a toss about those matters? I suspect that they do, but act purely on the political imperative of ‘perceptions’. That is, ‘reality’ and ‘truth’ are subservient to ‘perceptions’, and that ‘perceptions’ are what get political parties elected. Thus, we have a repetition of Prohibition in the USA and a repetition of Nazi Germany, both of which are going to come to their peak around 100 years after the previous incarnation.

We might ask how the ‘revolution’ might happen. I can just about see a relatively peaceful revolution. In the Communist revolution,  the event that sparked the eventual overthrow of the tyrannous rule of The Aristocrats in Russia was a revolt in the Russian navy. In the French revolution, it was the failure of the troops guarding the Bastille to defend it (and, presumably, the refusal of other officers and troops to intervene). Thus, it is clear, that the anti-smoker Zealots, who are persecuting smokers, rely upon police officers, border force officers, tax collection officers, environmental health officers, etc, to force obedience. Eventually, these officers will rebel, especially when the tyrannous edicts affect them and their families. That would be especially so if they started to be persecuted themselves for not persecuting others. That state of affairs is bound to happen eventually. Not whipping a suspected smoker will itself be a punishable offence.

And then the revolution will begin.

—–

In the short term, I vaguely see the possibility that ‘maleficence in public office’ is a possible counter to the lies and exaggerations which surround second hand smoke harm. I base this idea upon Science.

Any scientific idea must be, a) reproducible, and, b) refutable. If not, then the idea is no more than a ‘hypotheses’ or ‘theory’. That is why Einstein’s idea of ‘Relativity’ is, to this day, described as ‘Relativity Theory‘.  As yet, it can be neither proved nor disproved. It is in limbo.

I firmly believe that studies of SHS which show no harm have often been reproduced and and have not been falsified. The likelihood of SHS harm is also affected by the time-scales involved. Humans do not keel over and die merely because they live in a slightly smoky atmosphere, which must be the case in respect of wigwams, igloos, coal fires of old, kitchens, etc. It takes a time for SHS to have an affect which far exceeds the lifespan of humans.

——

And so I ask again: “What are the Tories up to?” They must have decided, pre-election, that it is very important to take the sting out of Labour’s statement that it will bring in more persecution of smokers, drinkers and fatties. To do so, the Tories have decided to persecute smokers.

They may have judged the public correctly, but it is also possible that the vast majority of the public do not give a toss about PP and car smoking bans whatever YouGov-type surveys may say. What seems to me to be true is that the Tory introduction of bans and PP will have no effect whatsoever upon non-smokers, and therefore will not attract votes from non-smokers. On the other hand, smokers who care about freedom will be annoyed. Thus, Cameron (and Clegg) have more to lose by promoting car bans and PP than they have have to gain.

====

Or, there might be much more sinister motives…..

====

But…. What is the worst that might happen?

Over the last eight years (since the smoking ban), I have saved tons of money because I was alerted to the rip-off of duty. Of course, I was always aware of duty, but while it was ‘within reasonable bounds’, I was content. But then the idiots forbade me from buying cigs in sufficient quantities (200 packs) to save me the trouble to have to go back again and again. Of course, this was a psychological trick, designed to make me worry.

=====

The events in New Orleans are particularly interesting. Will bar owners in that care-free city get together and demand compensation from each and every councillor who votes to destroy their livelihood? They have a case, you see. The ‘case’ that they have revolves around ‘maleficence in public office’, and ‘Conspiracy to provoke maleficence in public office’. The bar owners, and others, need to get together and complain to the police about ‘maleficence’.

That is also true in the UK. The Zealots have got away with lies and exaggerations for too long. When they use lies and exaggerations to persuade politicians to make laws, they are guilty of the offence of ‘conspiracy to provoke maleficence in public office’ by seeking to persuade MPs to vote in a specific way – if they deliberately and knowingly  use inadequate statistics to do so. But one could argue further that some MPs have knowingly misled the House of Commons, and are guilty of the offence of ‘maleficence’ themselves.

====

No one would want the statements of a person who wishes to stand for election as an MP to be monitored, just in case he makes a ‘misstatement’, and for him to be prosecuted for his ‘misstatements’.  But that is the way in which we are going. Only statements which conform will be permitted, and statements which are ‘negative’ will be deleted, and pro-ban statements will reign.

Thus, the revolution will be inevitable.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Tories to Bring In Plain Packaging”

  1. cherie79 Says:

    Last straw for me, I will vote UKIP or not vote at all and I live in Kent where it might actually count.

    • junican Says:

      I agree. There might have been a case for tactical voting by smokers in favour of the Tories to keep Labour out, but that is no longer the case. There is only one alternative.

  2. Smoking Lamp Says:

    Here are my thoughts on plain packing (which have been censored from some media sites): “Plain packs are ridiculous. They won’t reduce smoking. In Australia (which is the model tobacco control advocates point to) the results are not as successful as claimed. The smoking rate was declining before the move to plain packages, cigarettes sales increased, youth smoking actually increased, and illicit tobacco smuggling and black market cigarette trade increased.”

    The situation in New Orleans is sad. As of today, the majority of comments on the NOLA.com site are actually starting to trend on being opposed to the ban (after it has passed). There are still vile and virulent attacks on pro-choice commenters, but at least the site moderator isn’t wholesale censoring all anti-ban posts in favor of Antismoker rants and attacks.

    • junican Says:

      What you say about PP is far from nasty in any way, so it is hard to see why your comments should be censored. I also had a comment disappear, and all I said was that a freedom lost for one person is a freedom lost for all. But it disappeared.
      It does not surprise me that the censorship has now been relaxed. The ban has been passed, so what is the point of censoring?

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: