What Will be the Demise of Tobacco Control?

Having nothing specific in mind to talk about tonight, I thought that I might indulge in a bit of whimsy.

What do you think might bring the Tobacco Control persecution of smokers to and end?


There have been many similar persecutions throughout the ages, but I do not know of one which has been as highly organised and planned over a long period of time as has the persecution of smokers. Was Prohibition in the USA so highly organised? The anti-alcohol campaign was certainly well financed, and very successful in the USA, but it did not spread throughout the world like wildfire. But there was no United Nations and no World Health Organisation in those days – no means of worldwide control to be taken over. In the USA, there existed the means of control – Congress. Or rather, the ‘organs of government’. Curious, isn’t it, that politicians then, were just as malleable as they are now. Why? I suppose that there existed then the equivalent of  opinion polls. In those days, the equivalent was well-attended public meetings. What politician could resist an invitation to address such a meeting? Lots and lots of voters, and the newspapers present, and all he had to do was denounce booze companies. And so a temporary political advantage takes precedence over the consequences of that political decision.

As we all know, tobacco prohibition accompanied alcohol prohibition in the USA.

So what happened to the industries in question? What happened to the premises and equipment? One can only assume that they were mothballed. I don’t know if that is true, but I have not seen anything which has said that orders were made to destroy the equipment and demolish the premises.

You see, these sort of questions are important to understand what was really happening. If the equipment and premises were mothballed, then it is reasonable to assume that the owners were pretty confident that they would be required in the future – at least, somewhere in the USA, sooner or later.


The parallels with today are uncanny, apart from the fact that it is tobacco first and then alcohol, and apart from the fact that we now have the EUSSR. I don’t know what tobacco companies will do with their equipment when they close down operations in the UK. I suppose that they will transport it to Poland or Bulgaria or wherever. Is it surprising that tobacco companies have moved their manufacturing capability out of harm’s way? And is it surprising that they have removed themselves from being tax-collectors? Importers will be the tax collectors (which may be the tobacco companies for all I know, but the main point is that duty is payable when tobacco products leave the factory. Now, duty will only be payable when the products leave the premises of importers). They may have to have special packaging for the UK and Ireland, but that packaging can be undertaken in Poland or Bulgaria. In fact, it is hard to see how cigs can be transported to the UK in an un-packaged state and be packaged in the UK. Thus, as soon as the TCs move out of the UK, all those packaging jobs will be lost. They would have been lost regardless of PP. No one talks about these things.


What brought down Prohibition (of both alcohol and tobacco) in the USA?

A proper examination of the situation would ask the question: ‘what has brought down prohibitions throughout the ages?’. I think that the answer is fairly obvious, and it is that there will always be a rump, no matter how small, who become more and more determined to hang on as the persecution increases, even at mortal risk. Catholics (Papists?) in England took enormous risks to practice their religion, as did Catholics in Poland under communism.

I am a Catholic. I don’t go to church any more, and I have not insisted upon my daughters doing so. But I am still a Catholic. Why do I regard myself as still a Catholic?

First, I see no other possible explanation for ‘existence’ other than a Creator. For anything, even empty space, to exist, there must be some origin. Some THING must be eternal. Note that I do not mean ‘infinite’ since infinity, as far as ‘things’ like matter, space and change (aka ‘time’) is impossible. This impossibility is revealed by Einstein since the equations would demand that all matter must have originated from a ‘singularity’, which word is a mask for ‘a point’, which does not actually exist. IE, from nothing. Further, the ‘computer model’ demands a universe which can continuously expand. Expand into what place, which does not exist? And, ogf the greatest importance, WHAT IS SPACE???? ALL astronomers and cosmologists have avoided that question like the plague. But space exists, therefore it must be a THING.

Do we have a situation where astronomers and cosmologists WANT TO AVOID THE QUESTION? I think so.


Let us think.

What promoted and caused the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco in the USA around 1900 (don’t split hairs about actual dates)? It can only have been ‘outsiders’ looking in. What did the ‘outsiders’ see? They saw drunks, staggering about, who spent the family’s money on booze and then went home and beat their wives and children. But only at the lowest, poorest level, of course. The wealthy were immune to this ‘disease’. And all this ‘disease’ was caused by BIG ALCOHOL.


What destroyed Prohibition in the USA?

Some commenters have said that it was the Depression, and the need for Government to raise money from taxes. Since people were still drinking alcohol, surreptitiously produced, why not legalise it and tax it? But what about all the preaching about the evils of alcohol and the political stuff in the past?

Clearly, we must understand that political blather is just that – blather.


Just suppose that someone suddenly had an insight. Just suppose that someone with charisma  and public support, demanded that Public Health England ceased and desisted practices which persecuted smokers? That would apply to adverts on TV which were unrealistic (because Health is not something to be messed about with using advertising techniques, regardless of the facts).


The Smoking Ban will be abolished eventually because SHS will be shown to be harmless, other than to a small number of individuals who are already ill. Such people, such as asthmatics, should wear masks if they wish to go into smoking bars.


The end of tobacco control will come when it becomes obvious, and it will, that it is useless, despite the billions and billions of dollars/pounds which have been poured into it.


13 Responses to “What Will be the Demise of Tobacco Control?”

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    I agree with your analysis. Let’s hasten that day by pointing out every tobacco control lie and inequity every chance we get!

    • junican Says:

      That was quick! I have only just clicked ‘publish’!
      True. Of the greatest importance is that the smoking ban was enacted on the basis of ‘strong’ evidence that SHS is dangerous. That evidence was concocted just like the ‘miasma’ theory of malaria. It is exactly the same thing.

      • Smoking Lamp Says:

        The time zones aligned! Yes, it is the same thing. The public has been lied to. as you said yesterday the question remains why? Either way we need to fight this force as it is truly evil–whatever the exact motivation.

  2. Samuel Says:

    Prohibition in the US never ended. Leaving aside the fact that it was never legal for the federal government to impose it, it was imposed and it never ended. The federal government passed another Amendment to the federal Constitution that did not repeal the earlier Amendment that imposed it but amended that earlier Amendment to place alcohol, its production, distribution, sales and consumption, under the control of the federal government; where it remains to this day. Prior to Prohibition alcohol was a private affair or under the control of the several States with federal control only arising under the InterState commerce clause of the federal Constitution. The federal government still does not have legal authority over alcohol within the States (or over cannabis as has been recently upheld in numerous court findings) but has exercised such control because most users of alcohol don’t give two figs about who’s in control so long as they can buy beer or what not at a ‘reasonable’ price.

    • junican Says:

      I’m not quite sure what you mean, being not very familiar with USA constitutional matters. I hope that I’m right in thinking that when the Federal Government took over alcohol, all the bans in individual States lapsed and were not replaced by the Federal Government. But that was not the case with tobacco, was it?, since, as far as I know, individual States lifted tobacco bans individually.

  3. Rose Says:

    Curious, isn’t it, that politicians then, were just as malleable as they are now. Why?

    Because they were terrified of losing their jobs if they voiced even a mild objection.

    A long article but well worth reading on how it was done using the power of the Church.

    A few snippets.

    Wayne B. Wheeler: The Man Who Turned Off the Taps
    Prohibition couldn’t have happened without Wheeler, who foisted temperance on a thirsty nation 90 years ago

    “After he earned his law degree in 1898 and took over the Ohio ASL’s legal office, his productivity only accelerated. He initiated so many legal cases on the league’s behalf, delivered so many speeches, launched so many telegram campaigns and organized so many demonstrations (“petitions in boots,” he called them) that his boss lamented that “there was not enough Mr. Wheeler to go around.”

    Soon Wheeler and the ASL had effective control of the Ohio legislature. They had opposed 70 sitting legislators of both parties (nearly half the entire legislative membership) and defeated every one of them.”

    “Wheeler and the ASL sponsored more than 300 anti-Herrick rallies throughout the state and mobilized their supporters in the churches by suggesting that the governor—“the champion of the murder mills”—was a pawn of the liquor interests.”

    “The ASL’s assiduous attention to Congress had made wet politicians wobble, uncertain politicians sprint for dry shelter and dry politicians flex their biceps. Heading toward the 1916 elections, the league’s political expenditures exceeded the 2010 equivalent of $50 million in a single year.”


    • junican Says:

      All of which needed funding. Where did the funding come from? Rockefeller?

      • Rose Says:

        Yes, $350,323.67.

        LIQUOR: Gentlemanly Temperance

        “In the two decades before Prohibition, those lifelong teetotalers John D. Rockefeller Jr. and his father gave the Anti-Saloon League their staunch moral support and $350,323.67. When he declared for Repeal in 1932, Mr. Rockefeller by no means meant that he was quitting his long war on liquor. Having despaired at last of temperance by statute, he set his agents searching the world for other methods of attack.”

        “What the Council proposes to do is spend $100,000 or more per year in attempting to persuade U. S. citizens to drink like gentlemen, to acquire “an attitude of individual responsibility toward the use of liquor.”

        “Our messages will travel over the airwaves, reach the eye and ear through the screen and stage, and fashion public thought through advertising and other kinds of publicity.”

        now subscription only

        It’s not surprising that after the horrors of Prohibition they started with tobacco this time.

  4. artbylisabelle Says:

    Senator Leno of California is following in Wheeler’s foot steps.

  5. smokingscot Says:

    Now don’t you dare take a swipe at the messenger.

    It hurts me to say this, it really does Junican, but Rose brought up a valid point. Seems they plan to use their levy on tobacco companies to fully fund tobacco control.

    To my mind that’ll make them virtually invincible. Perish the thought.


    However I took a shufty at the pillock who’s behind this ten minute bill. Paul Burstow MP (Sutton and Cheam: Liberal Democrat).

    Seems this may be Paul’s final hurrah. He managed to hold Sutton and Cheam with a 3.3% margin over the Tories in 2010.


    This is one seat where UKIP could in fact make quite a difference. Fingers crossed the twit gets the boot.

    • junican Says:

      Didn’t Miliband float the same idea a little while ago? Do you really think that he would hand over all that lovely lolly to the propagandists of ASH ET AL, or the WHO?
      I must admit that I do not see how such a levy would be collected without a separate and expensive collection system. Further, essentially, it cannot be anything other than the same as duty. Why go to all the trouble of a separate system when there is already a system in place? Why not just raise duty by another 10%?
      Oh, wait. What about the Laffer Curve? But Burstow wants prices to go up, thus bringing the Laffer Curve into effect, and further encouraging the black market.
      I wonder if these people realise that they are turning ordinary people into active ‘criminals’? A few years ago, I would never have even thought of buying cigs from white van man, but I certainly would now! Further, it does not just stop at cigs.

  6. cherie79 Says:

    Shame we have lost one of our warriors RIP Captain Ranty.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: