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