What Does Tobacco Control Want?

I do not mean the destructive wish. We all know what that is: It is the destruction of tobacco companies, pure and simple. Any excuse which furthers that determination, whether it be true or not, is legitimate. We know that.

But ‘What does tobacco control want?’  is a legitimate question in a positive sense. “To stop people being killed by tobacco companies” is not an answer, for it is negative, and, in any case, if tobacco companies had killed even one person, the executives and shareholders of those companies would be in jail. No one has ever been killed by tobacco smoke. Tobacco smoke is not a bomb which explodes and kills whoever is to hand. Nor is it a virus or bacterium. Nor is it a poison which exists at a toxic level – there is no record of an accumulation of tobacco smoke in the human body similar to arsenic in the hair. In an case, there is no proof whatsoever that any accumulation of stuff would be sufficient to kill within a human lifespan.

So what does tobacco control want?

Suppose that tobacco control succeeded in bullying all smokers, as a result of bans, fines, imprisonment and a few public hangings, drawings and quarterings ‘pour encourage les autres’, into not enjoying tobacco at all. Of what benefit to mankind as a whole would that be? Would it be a benefit that a person would live in perfect health to see his great, great grandchildren? Would that be a benefit? But would such a person, who never smoked or came into contact with tobacco smoke (but other smoke is OK), actually be in perfect health at, say, the age of 120? Well, Yes, he could be. He might have no ‘disease’ in the sense that his heart, kidneys, brain, bladder, etc, are still working in the sense that his body is still ‘alive’. That result would seem to satisfy tobacco control’s objective – that person would be ‘in perfect health’. The fact that he was an incontinent, paraplegic vegetable would not be considered to be contrary to the claim of ‘perfect health’ since none of those things are bodily  ‘diseases’. Mental illness is not ‘a disease’; inability  to move is not ‘a disease’; loss of control of the bladder is not ‘a disease’. Such a person would be in ‘perfect health’.

But even then, why should tobacco control have ‘perfect health’ as its objective? Stephen Hawking could be described as ‘in perfect health’, I suppose, despite his infirmities, because he is still alive and does not smoke. If he smoked, he would not be in perfect health, by definition. But why should tobacco control have some sort of ownership of Stephen Hawking? Why should it decide upon his longevity by promoting that he should be jailed if he does not comply with smoking bans?

“Mr Hawking”, says the Judge, “You have been caught smoking in ‘a public place’ for the third time. Because of your eminence, I must take into consideration the bad example that you are giving to children. Also, I must take into consideration your perfect health. You will be imprisoned for a minimum term of thirty years without possibility of parole. Take him down”.

So let’s go back a century or so.

You might consider drunkenness to be a reasonable reason for the Prohibitionists to want alcohol banned. I suppose that it might have been true that some husbands got their wages, went to the local saloon and spent the lot on booze, and then went home and beat their wife and kids. At least that argument made some sense. But what was the sense of tobacco prohibition around the same time? It makes no sense, other than puritanism. I can sort of understand it. “For all we are about to receive, may The Lord make us truly thankful”. That is, the money that you earn must only be spent upon worthy things, and not upon waste, such as tobacco.

Many States had tobacco prohibition into the 1930s before the bans were lifted. In Germany, anti-tobacco was very active, as we know, in the 1930s. In the 1930s, people like Doll were going to Germany for discussions about tobacco harm. I have no doubt, in my mind, that the Hospital Study of Doll was planned long before it took place. It took place around 1950, and was a short study. But it was planned around 1947, shortly after the end of the war. I have no doubt in my own mind, that certain eugenicists, of which Doll was one, supported as he was by Rockefeller, or some such, took it upon themselves to further the eugenicist agenda – once the war ended. In fact, the conditions post war were perfect for their plans.

The above is not just ramblings. For I ask again, “What does tobacco control want?”

 

For the last three centuries or so, Christian missionaries have ventured all over the world spreading the gospel. What did they want? If they were true to the gospel, they would want to spread the word that humility, contentment and forgiveness were the key to happiness in this world, but, above all, thank God that you exist. For the collection of atoms in your body and brain are just like those in trees and cabbages. Your body and brain are THINGS. They are not YOU.

===

So what does tobacco control want?

There can only be one answer, which is to gain control of YOU. To enslave YOU. If you accept the terms of the slavery, you will be immortal until you peg out. Your health will be perfect until you peg out.

But we still do not know what tobacco control want! In a football match, both teams want certain things:

  1. To beat the opposite team.
  2. Not to be beaten by the opposite team.
  3. Accept a draw if necessary.

Tobacco control has no such sporting hopes. What it has done is disabled the opposition (baccy companies) in every way other than making money.

I suspect that tobacco control is a sort of bacterial infection – it does not know what it wants. It just wants to continue to exist.

It has no perceivable outcome.

 

Advertisements

10 Responses to “What Does Tobacco Control Want?”

  1. edward west (@castello2) Says:

    More and more it seems they actually still want to look like they want tobacco to go away but they live off the fact that it won’t go away.

    • edward west (@castello2) Says:

      They actually thrive on the fact that tobacco will never go away.

      • junican Says:

        It may well go away – if and when people find something more enjoyable. That is why the Fanatics find ecigs to be such a problem. People have made their own decisions, which threatens the superiority of the Fanatics

  2. elenamitchell Says:

    Are you sure they don’t just want us all to be miserable?

  3. Rose Says:

    I don’t think that even they know what they want, Junican, what they want and the reasons for it seems to change over time.

    The Hundred Year War Against the Cigarette

    http://legacy-dc.ucsf.edu/tid/mmb90e00/pdf;jsessionid=EDE732F5E858D416C8F5684A1E8DFAF2.tobacco03

    Like alcohol, tobacco was considered to be a medicine, which even James 1st acknowledges, though he desputes it at considerable length.

    Medical Uses of Tobacco Past and Present.

    http://legacy-dc.ucsf.edu/tid/lad54c00/pdf

    • junican Says:

      Interesting Rose. What seems to be happening is that schisms seem to be appearing. Carl Phillips and Siegel were ostracised. I can see Glantz and Chapman being ostracised soon. They are not ‘with’ the new-think on ecigs. Those people have to go. They are an embarrassment because of their attempts to demonise ecigs. The new-think is that ecigs might save tobacco control!

      • Rose Says:

        They have done a lot of harm and they know it, perhaps they hope that backing e-cigs will exonerate them and make it look like perhaps they were not so cruel and thoughtless after all, yet still medicalise the whole concept of inhaling nicotine.

      • junican Says:

        What is laughable about the medicalisation of nicotine is that they themselves refuse to say that nicotine is a cure for any known illness.

      • Rose Says:

        Even more amusing is that even they now acknowledge that they and everyone else eat small amounts of nicotine everyday in a variety of vegetables.

        I have been a busy little bee : )

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: