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