Dick Puddlecote has found a curiosity. It seems that Venezuela intends to fine parents US$800 if they don’t take steps to reduce the weight of any of their children who are obese.

“If you don’t your child’s weight down, we will ……..”

Behind everything that Public Health has done in the past couple of decades or so have been threats.

“If you smoke on an aircraft, we will…..”

“If an airline permits smoking, we will….”

“If a publican permits smoking, we will….”

“If you want to smoke, you must pay punitive taxation. If you do not, then we will….”

And soon to come:

“If you smoke in a car with a 17 year-old present, we will……”

“Tobacco manufacturers must uglify cigarette packets and give up their intellectual property, otherwise we will…..”

Threats, threats, threats.

This attitude reaches right to the top of The Tobacco Control Industry – and beyond. There is little doubt that even the World Bank, the IMF and the EU Central Bank are all involving ‘threatening behaviour’ to achieve their not very smoke-free utopia. Well, smokefree utopia when they remove vehicular smoke, cooking smoke, barbecue smoke, volcano smoke, forest fire smoke, bonfire smoke, hospital incinerator smoke, aircraft smoke,  central heating vent smoke, fart smoke, breath smoke, TV and computer smoke (the hot air which comes out of the vents, containing particles of heavy metals), swamp smoke, cow shit smoke, rotting vegetation smoke. Smoke is ubiquitous and kills X persons per annum, just as second hand tobacco smoke and ecig vapour does. All smoke contains chemicals and carcinogens There is no escape. We all all doomed, I tell ye – doomed.

How on earth have they been getting away with it, and how long will they continue to do so?

What is really weird is that the Zealots are not the ones doing the threatening; they demand that Government does the threatening. And, of course, Government Departments are full of Zealots as well as the universities. This is not some sort of conspiracy theory. It is fact.

Consider the situation. Who does all the shouting? Do we hear the likes of Andrew Black in the Health Dept on TV shouting about the need to bans and fines? No, not a peep. We have the likes of Arnott and Chapman. They do the shouting. The Andrew Blacks whisper into the ears of Ministers. Is it not odd that we have had three health ministers on the trot, Milton, Soubry and Allison, in quick succession, who have been full-on, anti-tobacco Zealots? Who recommended those particular individuals for the job? Cameron does not know everyone in the Tory party and their abilities. Someone must have recommended them. Who would that be? In any case, why has there been this rapid turnover? Three health ministers in four years. It almost seems as though each one has been given a task, and has then been moved on.

So the process is:

ASH ET AL do the shouting.

Universities do the studies.

The Health Dept Zealots present the minister with evidence of public opinion and the results of studies, along with plans for legislation.

The health minister proposes the threatening legislation and Parliament passes it. Sometimes the threats are introduced in a more subtle way. They are slipped into regulations which are not really about tobacco, such as finance acts, where slight, but threatening, changes to the tobacco description act (or whatever it is called) are slipped in and passed unnoticed. One such that I discovered was the simple proposal that “tobacco products may only be made in a factory approved by …..”. The trouble with such ill-thought-through amendments is that they produce anomalies. For example, when a person rolls a cig from RYO tobacco, has he ‘made a tobacco product’? Well, there is no doubt that he has, because the law says cigarettes are tobacco products and can only be manufactured in an approved factory. I have read that The Revenue ‘do not regard ‘using a machine to roll a cig as ‘manufacturing’, provided that the machine is hand-held and can only make one cig at a time’. Erm…. Where did The Revenue get the authority to make such decisions from? What should really happen is that a person who buys RYO tobacco should pay duty twice – once on the RYO tobacco and again on making the cig. Obvious innit?

I wonder if the EU ban on snus has more to do with taxation than harm? If a person decides to pack up inhaling tobacco smoke, but, instead, determines to allow tobacco to release nicotine via a small pouch in the warmth of his mouth, should snus be regarded as ‘a tobacco product’? Why should he pay a ‘sin tax’ on stuff which is helping him to stop smoking and is pretty harmless?  And yet, snus is tobacco.

Consider also ecigs. As opposed to snus, ecig juices are definitely not tobacco. There is no doubt about that at all. They contain nicotine, but are definitely not tobacco. It is as clear as clear can be that they should not be included in a ‘tobacco’ directive. If they are to be regulated, they should have their own directive. Convenience is no excuse for the autocratic use of so-called ‘democratic’ processes to redefine substances. If that were true, then sugar could be defined as salt. Would it be right to change the definition of the word ‘fertiliser’ to ‘explosive material’? Is it right to change the description of ‘a bag of fertiliser’ to ‘a bomb’?

Such trickery can only happen in an autocratic system which is corrupt. Note that it is not the autocracy alone which is the problem. It must also be corrupt.

The FCTC is a perfect example. Did any of the government ministers who signed up actually read it? I have my doubts. I know from an FOI request that I made that the minister who signed up on behalf of the UK was a Foreign Office minister. What would he know about tobacco? Bugger all, I suspect.


And so the inept Cameron and Clegg are on the cusp of approving more threats about smoking in cars and PP.

Threats, threats, threats.

Why do these people find it so difficult to understand that 99% of responses to PP which are against it, indicate that individuals matter? Why do they think that a dozen sock-puppet fake charities matter more that 50,000 individuals?

OK, I am rambling about now, but the idea of ‘an individual, living person’, as compared with ‘statistics’ came up in my recent spat with Dr Masters. When I told him that I was 75, a smoker since 17, and in good health, he described me as an ‘anecdote’. He preferred ‘data sets’.

Are his ‘data sets’ alive? Do they eat and drink, laugh and cry? ‘Data sets’ are what caused the slaughter of WW1. ‘Data sets’ are threats. ‘Data sets’ persecute people. ‘Data sets’ are cruel and inhuman. How else would the Leader of the WHO justify attending a jolly in Moscow about increasing the threatening behaviour of The Tobacco Control Industry in order to force people to live longer, when thousands of people in West Africa were dying from a ‘communicable’ disease HERE AND NOW. Imagine an outbreak of cholera in the 19th century NOT being investigated by Dr Snow, and, instead, an investigation of the killer disease of dandruff taking precedence. It is easy to see how the people could be lead to believe that the killer disease of dandruff originates from breathing dandruff from your own head.  It is also easy to see how a ‘partnership’ could be engineered between anti-dandruff Zealots and Big Pharma in which Big Pharma would produce anti-dandruff medications. But woe betide anyone who points out that simple washing of the scalp with soap and water has the same effect. Meanwhile, hundreds of people are currently pegging out from cholera.

That example is similar to ecigs and tobacco. If ecigs provide the same enjoyment of inhaling pleasant tasting substances as does tobacco, along with the ‘joy’ produced by nicotine, and the ‘alertness’ produced by nicotine,  without the putative physical harm, what is there to object to?


The Tobacco Control Industry relies upon threatening behaviour. It is a witch-hunt. Our politicians are behaving in just the same way as those who approved the drowning of witches. There is no difference at all.


The Threats are real and earnest, and they threaten our way of life. They play into the hands of jihadists, who concoct witch-hunts.

Shame upon Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, for they are all the same. For they have colluded to destroy our culture.




2 Responses to “Threats”

  1. Anthony Masters Says:

    Once again, I wake to find I have been misrepresented.

    I did not refer to you as an anecdote. What I said, after you cited your personal health, was this:

    “I praise you on your good health, and I apologise if this comment is overly long or I was previously aggressive. Unfortunately, I have known closely people have passed away from cancer, after lifetimes of smoking.

    It is better to deal with data, rather than anecdotes.”

    The idea that I was somehow dehumanising you is beyond any reasonable interpretation of what I said. The point was: why does your personal citation trump any that I may make? When seeking answers to empirical questions, anecdotal evidence can be unreliable and misleading.

    I find the insinuation I am not an individualist to be laughable: individual liberty, and the autonomy of adults to make decisions for themselves, is at the centre of my politics. Similarly, the idea that preferring data analysis when answering empirical queries is akin to causing the “slaughter of WW1”, threatening people, or supporting cruelty, persecution or inhumanity is utterly absurd.

    As I’ve stated before, I am against the goals and methods of tobacco control, but it has been implied in two separate articles on this blog that I am in some way a supporter.

    Given your first comment on my blog urged me to “open [my] eyes to the extent that the TCI has been distorting evidence for decades”, I would hope you would have the decency and honour to apologise for these misrepresentations of my beliefs, as well as those in the previous article, and issue a retraction.

  2. junican Says:

    Oh, For heaven’s sake, Sir, permit me a little poetic licence! When I said, “…..he described me as an ‘anecdote”, I was not being literal. A person cannot possibly be, literally, an anecdote.
    Dr Siegel wrote a post a little while ago complaining that many public health people disregard reports from vapers about how ecigs have helped them to stop smoking and how much better they felt. The Zealots described these reports as ‘allegorical’. And yet these reports are from real, living people. Are they to be disregarded in favour of dry statistics? Grantz (sorry, Glantz) in the US spends other people’s money getting statistics which suit his purpose, such as asking high school youths if the have ever tried an ecig (and then describing the kids as ecig ‘users’) so that he can claim a gateway effect and get ecig all but banned. Those are data sets, are they not?
    OK, OK, sometimes my imagination gets carried away somewhat, and I do get a bit rhetorical. Call it creative writing. Nothing personal, rest assured. I am sure that you are a super mathematician.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: