A response From the Oxford Union

I managed to get through to the Oxford Union, suggesting a debate entitled: “Is the world-wide tobacco control movement corrupt?” I received a reply.

It seems that the Union has been thinking about holding a debate about the tobacco industry in the near future. I am not sure whether or not the phrase ‘the tobacco industry’ is used loosely. I hope so, since another debate centring on the wickedness of Big Tobacco would be so absolutely boring. Much more interesting would be a debate about how the Tobacco CONTROL Industry has become a fascist, totalitarian, corrupt, socially and economically damaging, tyrant.

I offered to suggest some names of ‘prominent’ people who have been in tobacco control for a long time, but who have been ostracised (with their permission, of course), but I could not approach such people to ask for their permission to put their names forward without knowing what the debate would be about. My contact at the Oxford Union has asked me to suggest names of those who have been ostracised, but I cannot, as I have explained, until I know what the OU intend.


I don’t hold out much hope that the Oxford Union will have the courage to take on the massed ranks of those parts of the corrupt medical establishment which are obliged by the weakness of their position to employ every possible under-hand means at their disposal to defend themselves. The vicious attacks upon ecigs clearly emphasis the point. Imagine a child sucking on a lolly which is packed full of tooth-rotting, obesity-making sugar and other addictive toxins. Imagine that Big Lolly invent a NEW lolly with almost zero quantities of those ingredients, but just as tasty, would Public Health condemn those NEW lollies, claiming that the only acceptable course is to be LOLLY-FREE?

Well, YES!! In condemning ecigs, that is precisely what BIG HATE has done.


The phrase “Denormalise smoking” sounds reasonable, until you think more carefully about the meaning of the words. Volcanoes smoke. Chimneys smoke (or used to). Fires smoke. Burning tubes of tobacco smoke. Deep sea vents smoke. The verb “to smoke” used to mean “to emit smoke”. When I enjoy tobacco, I inhale the product of the smoking cig, and then I myself smoke to some extent when I breath out the smoke. I know that we have become use to the corruption of our language, but we should resist. Thus, a piece of wood which has been burning, is often referred to as ‘smouldering’ when it has almost all been consumed by fire. What else is ‘smouldering’ other than ‘smoking’?

OK. I digress. And my words above may be silly, but they are typical of ‘newspeak’; for example, do not accept the phrase ‘climate change’. Absolutely refuse to do so. Do not use that phrase at all. It is stupid since the climate is constantly changing. It heats and cools, rises and falls, compresses and decompresses, swirls left and right. IS IT HEATING UP? That is the only important thing.

So is the phrase “Global Warming” accurate? Well, obviously NOT!! The idea that mankind’s activities are heating up the whole of the Globe is beyond ridicule. Damnation! The Globe has a diameter of 8 000 miles! Mount Everest is only one thousandth of that diameter. Clearly, whatever might happen at the surface of the Globe has no effect whatsoever, even the tiniest bit, upon the Globe as a whole, since the Globe as a whole is still extremely hot internally and subject to change.

So what phrase could be used? I doubt that there is one, since there is nothing to describe. Suppose that I have a glass of whisky and I drink the whisky so that there is nothing in the glass. “What is the colour of the liquid which is no longer in the glass?” That is the sort of nonsense which Cameron, Clegg and Miliband believe.


Will the Oxford Union dare to upset the Establishment? It has a long history of doing precisely that. It would be a pity if it did not buck the trend.

Obviously, I have been back in touch. I hope that the contact does not break. I hope that the contact sees the significance of anti-smokER junk science persecution and thinks about a debate highlighting the persecution.





2 Responses to “A response From the Oxford Union”

  1. Dick Puddlecote Says:

    I read about your idea but didn’t think you’d contact them. Great stuff, keep plugging away, it would be great subject matter for them.

    • junican Says:

      My first email to them failed for some reason – perhaps I got the address wrong. It was my second attempt which got through.
      Yes, the Oxford Union has a history of debating ‘awkward’ questions.
      I told them that I could not suggest names without knowing what the subject of the debate would be, and have asked them to let me know as soon as they have decided. What more can I do? At least, I have put the idea into their minds.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: