ASH Must Demand Prohibition ofTobacco Products

Simon Clark of Forest has an interesting article about comments made by Arnott re Forest’s objection to increased tobacco product taxes:

http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/17/tobacco-ash-fails-to-make-case-for-higher-taxes-says-tma.html

Here is what Simon quoted as what Arnott had to say:

In a letter published yesterday, she wrote:

It is no surprise that Forest, a tobacco-industry funded lobby group, opposes raising tobacco tax in the Budget. But the public doesn’t agree with Forest, and even smokers support raising taxes on tobacco if the money is used to help smokers quit and stop young people getting addicted in the first place.

And it’s not just the cost of smoking to the NHS that needs to be taken into account, but also the tragedy of wasted lives and the wider cost of to society, from a lethal product which kills 100,000 people in the UK each year.

The chancellor himself has said it is fair to make the tobacco industry pay more for the damage it does. We’d love to see him live up to that commitment.

Do you notice something about that statement? Arnott is CEO of ASH. ASH belongs to the College of Physicians. It was set up by those people. Thus, Arnott speaks for the RCP. Do you notice that there is not a word about getting the production and sale of tobacco products banned?

Arnott has been CEO of ASH for some years, and I have never heard her say anywhere that tobacco products must be prohibited. Never ever. Not have I seen any other of the CEOs of ASH Scotland or ASH Wales or ASH anywhere making such a demand.

….but also the tragedy of wasted lives and the wider cost of to society, from a lethal product which kills 100,000 people in the UK each year.

A LETHAL product which kills 100,000 people per an. How strange that she does not, and never has, demand that that product should be banned.

And, as far as I recall, neither does the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control make such a demand.

WHY NOT! WHY THE FUCK NOT! (I do not often swear)

Nor have I heard Chapman, Grantz (sorry, Glantz), etc, and all the rest of the spokespersons EVER demand prohibition of tobacco products.

Are they not therefore complicit in the perpetuation of the ‘terrible toll of tobacco in terms of death and disease’ by virtue of their failure to demand full, total and immediate prohibition? Should they not be demanding that the UN circle the world with aircraft, spraying tobacco plantations with herbicide in order to bring the ‘tobacco caused world-wide epidemic of ‘tobacco-related diseases’ to a full stop?

Let us think back to around 1990. It was around then that the idea of The Millennium Goals was being mooted. In fact, I have no doubt that discussions of that idea went back much further. In fact, we can say that that idea originated in the Eugenics era from early 20th Century America, which idea of ‘racial purity’ was perpetuated in Nazi Germany. Eugenics has not gone away. It has morphed into ‘health for all’, but it is much the same in the sense that the masses must be forced to be healthy. The Eugenicist Zealots can no longer sterilise ‘the unworthy’ or exterminate undesirables, but they can sure as hell make life very unpleasant for them.

The Millennium Goals use the word ‘Sustainability’. That word is cover for the idea of population control, and the idea that that population must be a healthy population.

===

Damn! I always seem to get carried away. Back to the subject in hand.

Arnott, Chapman, Glantz, etc must ALL be confronted. Demands must be made that they explain themselves. For at least two decades, they have permitted the perpetuation of mass murder of adults, children and babies by tobacco companies, alcohol companies, sugar companies, salt companies, etc, without demanding that the mass murder should be brought to an IMMEDIATE stop. Small, incremental steps towards eventual prohibition might be politically appropriate, but they should have been shouting out loudly that only prohibition is the answer. For these incremental steps have permitted the continuing slaughter. It would be like Churchill demanding not the total military defeat of Nazi Germany but the winning of ‘hearts and minds’, with a view to getting the German military to withdraw from the conquered territories.

So, when smoking bans were demanded by ASH ET AL, why did our elected representatives not see the blatant faults in their limited demands? According to ASH ET AL, the annual slaughter from tobacco is worse than WW1 and WW2 combined. Why were they demanding the end of a skirmish (with its few casualties) rather than the end of the war (with its massive slaughter)?

Arnott et al must be thoroughly questioned about this failure. It is a massive, massive, massive failure. It stinks of calculation, misdirection, fraudulent procurement of public funds for personal gain, misinformation, waste of academic funding, fake studies, etc, etc.  It was always bound to be so when Prohibition in the early 20th century (of tobacco as well as alcohol, don’t forget) failed so spectacularly.

Government in the UK has now forbidden the use of taxpayer grants for lobbying of Government. An interesting corollary is that an implication is that Local Authorities are forbidden to give out grants without assurances that the grants are for a ‘purpose which improves people’s lives’. I love that.

You see, some time ago, a semi-quango in our Local Authority, which was supposed to consider the ‘wellbeing’ of local people, produced a anti-tobacco diatribe which was supposed to be a report, wrapped up in soothing words. Once you see past the soothing words, you see the recommendation that the poorest people can be ‘helped’ by being forced to stop smoking. The report was a total waste of money, since, essentially, it was much the same as an ASH press release.

That group seems to have disappeared. It produced nothing but demands for persecution of smokers, drinkers, and anyone else who transgressed into PERSONAL PLEASURE. I suspect that the group must have been disbanded.

===

Finally, for tonight, it is clear beyond doubt that organisations which receive taxpayer funding must be subject to freedom of information requests (FOI). The National Lottery is a Government backed organisation. The Government guarantees its fairness. On what grounds did the National Lottery give ASH £500,000? Was it because an ASH trustee was on the Nat Lottery board? ASH may be registered as a ‘not-for-profit’ organisation, but it is as far removed from ‘charity’ as it is possible to be – unless some ISIS jihadi group were to register as a charity. And why should they not? After all, their bombings, shootings, rapes and sharia law are only designed to ‘help’ native Brits to assimilate into Muslim culture. What’s wrong with that?

===

Everything has become the wrong way round. The Contentment of The People no longer has value. Politicians of every colour demand turmoil. I would vote for any party which spelt out its intentions to promote contentment.

 

 

 

Advertisements

13 Responses to “ASH Must Demand Prohibition ofTobacco Products”

  1. Jude Says:

    I’ve often asked various ANTZ and those in the pay of the tobacco control industry, why, if smoking is causing sooooo much death and disease, are you not shouting from the roof tops to have the product banned from sale? They are happy to vilify and punish smokers, and play around with stupid things like “propaganda packaging” but never demand the product be banned from sale.

    I’ve also never received a straight answer to that all important question. These people couldn’t lie straight in bed.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    No more tobacco no more jobs for these tossers. There would be an outcry if they tried banning tobacco because even the non smokers would realise something else would follow. That is the way these ‘NAZI’s’ work

  3. cherie79 Says:

    I would have some respect for a ban but none at all for persecution while taking our money.

  4. junican Says:

    Apart from self-interest, their problem is the failure of prohibition in America early last century. But be in no doubt that ‘de facto’ prohibition is what they want, and they are trying to achieve it by stealth. They talk about raising taxes and make excuses, as did Arnott when she said that ‘even smokers are in favour if the money is used to stop youngsters taking up smoking….’, but what she really wants is simply a huge price increase. It has nothing to do with children; it has to do with stopping poorer people from being able to afford the cost of cigs. That is FORCE and not HELP.
    What I would like to see is Forest, and others who get involved in TV discussions and such, pushing ASH ET AL to demand prohibition openly.

  5. junican Says:

    Further, it is important not to discuss the matter on their terms. The approach is simple; if smoking is that bad, why do ASH ET AL not demand the prohibition of tobacco products?

  6. smokingscot Says:

    Ah, the smoking gun.

    Deaths in England in 2013 among adults aged 35 and over

    In 2013, 17 per cent (78,200) of all deaths of adults aged 35 and over were estimated to be caused by smoking compared to 19 per cent (95,300) in 2003.

    Please note the word ESTIMATED.

    http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB17526

    • junican Says:

      NO death is caused by smoking. Thus, there is no possible ESTIMATE.

    • garyk30 Says:

      Two things;
      1. Since about 20% of adults smoke, it would seem that they should account for a higher percentage of deaths.
      2.’age 35 and older’, seems there are no children’s deaths from smoking. They surely would count them if there were.
      After all,so much of the TC BS is about the harm to children.

      • garyk30 Says:

        From the same source:
        Around 454,700 hospital admissions were estimated to be attributable to smoking..
        This accounts for 4 per cent of all hospital admissions in this age group (35 years and over).
        This compares to 447,300 admissions in 2003/04 which was 6 per cent of all admissions.

        SOOOOO,Smokers = 20% of the adult population; but, only account for 4% of the hospital admissions.

  7. Some French Bloke Says:

    Arnott, Chapman, Glantz, etc must ALL be confronted.

    There’s one zealot that should be closely questioned first and foremost, namely historian Robert N. Proctor (Senior Scientific Reviewer for the 50th Anniversary Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health). He’s a proponent not only of the idea that “smoking will cause one billion deaths in the 21st century”, but also of the “flue curing” theory, whereby tobacco smoking wouldn’t have exacted such a ghastly toll on human health and well-being, hadn’t the smoke thereof been made “inhalable” as a result of the introduction of this curing process from 1839 onwards. He simply borrowed the idea from Fritz Lickint’s pseudo-scientific anti-tobacco rants of the 1930s, but what the pompous blighter is implying is that simply regulating the fermentation process of tobacco leaves could prevent hundreds of millions of premature deaths throughout the current century, yet he’s not been campaigning for appropriate legislation to be passed, choosing to pursue his abolition “snark” instead!!

    • Some French Bloke Says:

      fermentation process tobacco leaves

      Corrigendum: “fermentation process OF tobacco leaves”…

      • junican Says:

        Corrected.
        ‘Flue Curing’ took the fires out of the barns. Wood and charcoal fires inside the barns provided the curing heat, but they also coated the leaves with soot. The external fires heated air which was passed through the barns via funnels, heating up the air inside the barns.
        Little credit has been given to the pioneers of flue curing, which removed a lot of the harmful substances in tobacco.

    • Some French Bloke Says:

      To say nothing of the fact that Proctor’s account of the “discovery” of the flue-curing process is more than a little confusing. The beginning of his chapter on the “Flue-curing revolution” in his “Golden Holocaust” goes:

      “Few discoveries have been so consequential, and it all came about by accident. In 1839, or so the story goes, a Negro slave by the name of Stephen on Abisha Slade’s farm in Caswell County, North Carolina, fell asleep while tending the fires inside a tobacco-curing barn. With the fire in danger of dying, the man rushed out and, failing to find any dry wood, gathered up some of the charcoal normally reserved for the blacksmith’s forge and threw this onto the fire. Charcoal burns much hotter than wood, which caused the tobacco to cure in a way never before seen. The leaves turned a bright golden yellow and smoked much milder than expected.”

      So all that Stephen did was switch combustibles, not lay down pipes around a barn overnight, yet by focusing the reader’s attention on the year 1839 as “the” pivotal moment, this TobCon cultist is able to more conveniently account for the rise of so-called tobacco-related diseases happening only in the subsequent (20th) century, whereas in fact the “flue” system had been in use in tobacco barns decades before 1839, “earlier in the century” in the vague words of Prof. Proctor himself:

      Flue-curing has the name it does by virtue of how heat is
      transferred to the tobacco leaves during the fermentation process. Low brick chimneys with closed, iron-conduit pipes had been introduced to reduce the risk of fire earlier in the century, and it was through these metal “flues” that charcoal-heated air was pumped to warm the tobacco.

      Conclusion: just another fib from the TobCon crowd!

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: