Thinking About Prohibition

I was reading something earlier about Conspiracy Theories. Here is the URL:

http://www.serendipity.li/eden/laconspi.html

There have been lots of them, but one of the biggest, and one which rumbles on to this day, is the assassination of President Kennedy. The author is at pains to say that the majority of conspiracy theories are nonsense, such as aliens hiding on the far side of the moon and sneaking out to kidnap and experiment upon human beings, but he also says that we must nevertheless be aware that conspiracies do indeed exist. For example, Eisenhower warned against the existence of ‘The Military Industrial Complex’. It isn’t difficult to imagine a comparatively small group of very powerful people getting together and working out what to do when the whole economy of a country like the USA is threatened by the drying up of oil supplies. You have to imagine such people saying that you cannot allow anyone to get away with closing off such supplies. If you let it happen once, then it will happen again. If you need to create an excuse for aggression, then create the excuse. IT MUST BE DONE. That would be the thinking.

None of us Smokers like to think that we promote conspiracy theories. And yet we know very well that such conspiracies exist in tobacco control. And they have existed for decades. What is uncertain, and a problem, is how deep the conspiracies go. For example, we know perfectly well that tobacco control wants prohibition of tobacco products, but avoids saying so.It goes to enormous lengths to avoid saying so. Somehow or another, ‘Newspeak’ has spread throughout tobacco control all over the world, so that the word ‘PROHIBITION’ is not in the vocabulary of even the lowest operator within the tobacco control apparatus. The phrase ‘should be banned’ appears commonly in comments on newspaper articles, but NEVER in the pronouncements of TobCon. I’m not sure if people who train operatives actually tell trainees never to use the word PROHIBITION or not, but perhaps they do not need to do so. Perhaps the trainers follow some sort of educational system which causes trainees to automatically convert the word ‘prohibit’ into ‘help’, as in: “We do not prohibit smoking, we help people to stop smoking”. So, if an operative is asked the question, “Do you want tobacco products banned?”, then the operative would automatically reply, “Oh no. We just want to reduce tobacco harm and help people to stop smoking”. Repeat it often enough, and it become second nature to speak in that way. We all do it already. If we are in company, and we need a shit, we say, “Excuse me – I need the loo”. We do not say, “Damn! I’m going to shit in my pants unless I get to the bog NOW!”

It is on the tip of my tongue who said it, but what he said is very true: “A price increase, which puts the desired object out of the reach of a group of people, is a prohibition for those people”. It does not matter if it is a good thing for the desired object not to be available to those people. It is still a prohibition.

But the reader may have noticed that TobCon is beginning to break ranks about avoiding prohibition. Some controllers are suggesting prohibition. They mat find a form of words which does not use THAT word, but what they want is still prohibition. The obvious one is that people born after the year 2000 should not be allowed to buy tobacco products. No matter what words and phrases might be used to disguise it, the legislation required to bring it about would be prohibition.

There has clearly been conspiracy within TobCon from the beginning. By that, I do not mean making plans to reduce smoking because of its putative harmful effects. Such plans are reasonable. It is reasonable to say, “Smoking can do you harm, and there is lots of evidence that that is so, therefore don’t smoke”. That is reasonable. It is then up to the individual to decide what to do. It is his/her life and his/her decision. Smoking cessation services? Fine, apart from who pays. It would be reasonable for the NHS to pay for, and account for, such services, if it is reasonable to assume that smoking causes health service costs. Note the use of the word ‘reasonable’. That word is essential, since football, also causes NHS costs, as do motor cars and old age.

What is absolutely unreasonable is the use of FORCE, especially if the use of force is disguised by the use of the word HELP. There is absolutely no justification.

So where is the justification of smoking bans? There may be some organisations which have voluntarily created such bans, such as sports venues, railway platforms and aircraft. That is their right, even if the decision was merely not to have to redecorate their premises every five years or so. But State FORCE applied to publicans, to enforce pub smoking bans, is, if I may say so, unconstitutional. That idea has not been tested. It has been avoided.

It is hard to know what the Common Law dictates. I do not know. ‘Pimping’ is prohibited. [Pimping is the practice of a person, normally a male thug, ‘owning’ prostitutes and profiting from those prostitutes] If a publican wanted to permit smoking, would he be the equivalent of a pimp? The law which FORCES (the positive of PROHIBITS) publicans to enforce smoking bans is way out of line in terms of Common Law. It needed the artificiality of Statute Law to reverse Common Law.

Is there a conspiracy to negate Common Law in this land? Well, there might not be such a deliberate intent, but there certainly seems to be an intent to replace as much Common Law with Statute Law (aka EU Law) as possible, and as quickly as possible.

But what would be the conspiracy and who are the people who are conspiring? It can only be that those who decide to give billions of pounds to the EU are the people who are conspiring. The two groups, the POLITICAL controllers and the INDUSTRIAL controllers, must be the same entity.

===

Tobacco Control is only a thin wedge, intended to ‘unite’ Governments. Climate Change is much the same, as is the attack on sugar and salt. An attack on oil is just around the corner.

===

We are seeing the politicisation of everything – what you eat, what you drink, what you inhale, etc. But what is really weird is that we elect representatives to STOP such persecution and yet they toe some sort of party line which has come from no identifiable source.

I think that Cameron is likely to be a decent chap, but, like Chamberlain, is likely to wave ‘a piece of paper’ in the air.

Conspiracies are normal. We should not be surprised that Glantz et al conspire.

 

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Thinking About Prohibition”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    ” the word ‘PROHIBITION’ is not in the vocabulary of even the lowest operator within the tobacco control apparatus. The phrase ‘should be banned’ appears commonly in comments on newspaper articles, but NEVER in the pronouncements of TobCon”

    AntismokingThinks:

    (1) “It’s not a ban. We’ve just provided a place out by the nice scenic dumpsters in the back where smokers know they can smoke comfortably without disturbing their friends, families, and children.”

    (2) “It’s not a tax. It’s voluntary.”

    (When the governor of NJ (or Connecticut? Or both) used that one a few years back I was hoping someone would pop into a convenience store, order a carton of smokes, plop down a $20 as they picked ’em up and walked out while saying, “I’m not volunteering any money this time, so keep the change!” )

    And very good catch on their avoidance of the Prohibition term. The US history with Alcohol Prohibition has kept that one out of their vocabulary. They also can’t use “Final Solution” because that one got a bad rap from a previous Antismoker. Soooo… they’re now fairly solidly falling in line behind the “Endgame.” Nice and soft and playful and intellectual sounding. And the “Greedy” faction of the Antis will always be there to make sure that it never TOTALLY plays out to “The End.”

    – MJM

  2. Samuel Says:

    Governments exist to keep society in an unchanged state, one in which those with the money and power remain in power and keep the money. Disruptive technologies must be quashed, subverted, redirected or outlawed because they change the way things get done and transfer power and wealth from traditional holders hands into the control of new people who, being the wrong sort, will continue to change things and continue to gain more strength.

    The industrial revolution was an example of disruptive technology and it changed societies all over the world. Prior to that event Church and State held all the power and wealth and used it to outlaw common people from activities that might change their status. For a time it was a capital offense for a son to have a profession different from his father and similarly criminal for peasants to leave their lord’s estate.

    Machines changed the nature of production of foods and textiles making the great estates and the tied to the land labor force obsolete and eventually transferred the power and wealth and the relevancy of the nobility into a new class of industrialists and businessmen. Now it is these who, holding power, want to use government to prevent new technologies from coming along (unless they own them) and shaking them out of the trees and leaving them to rot on the ground like the lords they displaced.

    New technologies can only succeed when they are so powerfully transformative and adopted so widely and so quickly that the rulers are taken by surprise. Computers and micro electronics are a disruptive technology that are changing the way money and power are acquired and moving the wrong sort of people into positions of authority. The conspiracy, if there is one, is to find a way to put things back they way they were, preferably all the way back, with a greatly reduced global population, tied to the land, living off of subsistence farming and making all their clothes and tools themselves. There is definitely a desire on the part of the right sort of people to put the genie back in the bottle and the peasants back in their hovels and everyone back under the thumbs of Church and State.

  3. Rose Says:

    Alcohol has always been the big one and the whole world knows about Prohibition, what most people don’t know is that after drinkers had been crushed, tobacco was supposed to be next.

    This time they did it the other way round, presumably if people had already got used to their smoking friends and neighbours being banned from everywhere and turned into social outcasts, similiar treatment for alcohol drinkers would be more readily accepted.

    .
    .

    “Prohibition is won, now for tobacco,” proclaimed the great anti-saloon preacher Billy Sunday in 1919 (1).

    Within months of the war in Europe coming to an end, the US federal government passed the 18th Amendment and the sale and consumption of alcohol was banned across the nation.

    The temperance dream was now a reality and, for those who had spent years campaigning for it, prohibition was just the first step towards the moral regeneration of the country. The next step was to stamp out tobacco.

    In 1919, Frederich W. Roman published a book with the ominous title Nicotine Next and its author confirmed smokers’ fears in an interview with the New York Tribune, saying: “We have been holding back our agitation during the war for patriotic reasons, but now that the war is over we intend to push it vigorously.”(2)

    ‘Nicotine Next’ was soon adopted by the WCTU as their pithy, post-war slogan and Clarence True Wilson, leader of the Anti-Saloon League, urged anti-tobacconists to “strike while the iron is hot.”(3)
    http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=18

  4. junican Says:

    Thanks all for the very pertinent comments.
    I have no doubt that the Prohibitionist never went away after the end of prohibition. I suspect that Foundations like Rockefeller, being self-perpetuating organisations, still had the same fundamental ‘puritanical’ leanings. People like Rockefeller did not amass their fortunes by sitting drinking in bars. They worked 24 hours a day, give or take a few hours for eating, drinking and sleeping. You can imagine the top people in such organisations asking the question: “What went wrong?”, and coming to the conclusion that the ‘top down’ approach was the wrong way. Better to work out ways to isolate and stigmatise small groups of smokers/drinkers a few at a time. Thus, smokers were thrown out of pubs, while it is ‘problem drinkers’ who are the focus of propaganda, even though the ‘remedies’ suggested affect ALL drinkers. And then comes the ‘no safe level’ of alcohol to justify the whole population persecution.

    My point is that one must not allow the Zealots, who have learnt their lines off by heart, to dictate the process of a debate. Regarding alcohol harm, the question put to the Zealots ought to be: “But what do you propose to ‘help’ problem drinkers?” Note, not “how do your proposals help problem drinkers?” That question would evince the standard response, “More expensive alcohol will put the stuff out of their reach financially BEFORE they become problem drinkers”, which then takes the discussion away from reality and into futuristic anomalies.

    • Rose Says:

      Regarding alcohol harm, the question put to the Zealots ought to be: “But what do you propose to ‘help’ problem drinkers?”

      Note the repeated use of the word “cravings” rather than “would really like” or “look forward to” another drink.

      Drinkers offered pill to help reduce alcohol consumption
      2014

      “Thousands eligible for tablet aimed at easing cravings for those consuming half a bottle of wine or three pints a night”

      “Drinkers who have half a bottle of wine or three pints a night are to be offered a life-saving pill which helps reduce their alcohol consumption.

      Nearly 600,000 people will be eligible to receive the nalmefene tablet to keep their cravings at bay.

      Experts claim the drug, which costs £3 a tablet, could save as many as 1,854 lives over five years and prevent 43,074 alcohol-related diseases and injuries.

      The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) recommended the drug’s use after trials showed it cut drinking by 61% over six months when used with counselling.

      Under new plans, GPs would ask patients about their alcohol intake even when they visit them for unrelated health issues.”
      http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/03/drinkers-pill-alcohol-cravings-consumption-nalmefene

      “Lyndsey Dudley, a spokeswoman for Nice, said the drug would be suitable for people who “probably don’t even recognise themselves as an alcoholic”.

      She said: “It is much like a patch that you might wear to give up smoking, to support you to cut down on your alcohol intake.”
      http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/26/nalmefene-pill-reduce-desire-drink-alcohol-nice-prescription

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        Am I correct in figuring that at a total cost of about 750,000,000 pounds per year for Big Pharma?

        To stop people from enjoying a half bottle of wine?

        Granted, a half bottle of wine every night is a *bit* excessive… but certainly not by much. Don’t they count 1/4 bottle as being a health BENEFIT overall? Or have they changed that?

        And that’s not even TOUCHING upon the health detriment of removing the relaxation many of those wine drinkers feel from their days’ stresses with that half bottle of dinner wine. Perhaps they should be prescribed ANOTHER 750,000,000 pounds of de-stresser tablets each year to make up for that missing wine?

        “Oh, I’m so HAPPY now that I don’t drink all that nasty tasting wine every night after dinner! My SOAP (Significant Other Attached Person) and I just pop our pills and then go cuddle with smiles on our faces….”

        Sheeesh!

        – MJM

      • junican Says:

        Granted, a half bottle of wine every night is a *bit* excessive…“.
        Erm… Where on earth do you get that idea from, Mr McF? Eh? Don’t tell me that you actually believe the junk science, such as it is! You’ll be telling us ‘that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption’ next!

        Seriously, why should it be excessive? Who says so? For whom is it excessive?

        That is our argument, is it not? It is that individual health weakness do not translate into whole population health weaknesses.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: