A Conspiracy Theory

I asked myself this question: “What POLITICAL advantage accrues when anti-tobacco laws are passed?”. Note – not health advantage. I have in mind the deceptions which have occurred, such as the sudden decision by the Health Dept to reverse the exception of wet-led pubs and private clubs from the smoking ban. That reversal took place without any consultation at all and was the result of a meeting of some Health Committee which stated that the deleterious effects of SHS were the same for workers in wet-led pubs and private clubs as other places. There is no doubt that the whole process was fixed. Allow exceptions in the original proposed legislation then cancel the exceptions in the final vote. That, essentially, is what happened. You cannot PROVE that it was fixed, but it really is rather obvious. The same applies to the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ which were the excuse for the Gulf war.

So what was the POLITICAL advantage of anti-tobacco? Forget health and think of politics. You also need to put aside the economics of loss of tax revenue if smokers stop buying tobacco products. What is the POLITICAL advantage?

Could it have something to do with bringing Multinational Corporations under control? How can individual nations control Multinationals, unless they get together into GROUPS of nations?

It is easy to see how it might be advantageous to ‘herd’ these multinationals into one group. Thus we have PP in Australia. PP is a POLITICAL event, designed to ‘herd’ tobacco companies into a corral.

===

We see the same template being used on Alcohol. There are huge, multinational alcohol manufacturers and distributors. They too need to be brought under control. The same applies to Big Oil and Big Food. All those organisations are bigger than individual nations for the most part. They make their own rules and laws.

But why is Big Pharma excepted? That is a riddle.  Unless Big Pharma is seen as benign, and thus on the side of the angels. If that is true, then its massive profits are justified. It can do no wrong, whatever it does, even if it is multinational.  It is benign.

===

We come to the conclusion that Tobacco Control was and is a deliberate attempt to bring multinational traders under control. It has nothing to do with health, and is entirely to do with political aspirations. That would explain Cameron’s vacillating.

===

There is a problem with multinationals. That has to be acknowledged. The same applies to tax-havens. What ought be obvious to politicians is that punishing millions of people is not an option to counter the Multinationals and Tax Havens.

Thus, the UN has become  a divisive instrument rather than a uniting instrument, which it was originally intended to be.

===

Smokers must accept the STATUS QUO for the time being. The politics is not about Health, it is about Multinational control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

6 Responses to “A Conspiracy Theory”

  1. Roberto Says:

    Politicians everywhere are calculating cowards, they go along Pubic Health (and specially with Tobacco Control) to avoid conflicts with a well funded bureaucracy with vested interests in Big Pharma. It is all about money. They do weigh the options and may consider oppose extreme PH policies on alcohol and sugar if they feel the latter may be too unpopular. Unfortunately, they always concede to the whims of tobacco controllers, mainly because we smokers are a weak and completely scattered population. Politicians are not afraid of a popular backlash from us. Just look at alcohol and sugar, yes, there are some PH Nanny State loonies pressing governments for stricter regulation, and politicians concede some demands (like Cameron conceding the sugar tax which we have had in Mexico already 2 years). However, politicians would not agree to “control” alcohol and sugar with the same severity as tobacco, they would be (literally) facing a rebellion, besides the fact that most politicians drink but do not smoke, so they don’t care.

    • junican Says:

      A lot of truth in what you say, but I am talking about the world stage. There is a POLITICAL battle going on between powerful politicians and powerful multinationals. I use the word ‘politician’ in this context very loosely. It could include Trade Union Bosses. If that sound pejorative, I do not intend it to be so. Trade Unions are weakened by the multinational nature of some employers.

  2. Frank Davis Says:

    It might be a globalist “New World Order” thing, whereby you have to show that you can implement something – in this case smoking bans – more or less everywhere in the world. The political goal is to prove that you can do something fairly simple globally before you move on to something more difficult.

    • junican Says:

      I think that it IS a “New World Order” thing, but not just a try-on. Powerful Zealots have decided that tobacco, alcohol, etc are unhealthy, and that human activities change the climate adversely. Nothing else matters. Thus, all their energy is pointed at those specifics. Nothing else matters, including ebola. They would not be distracted from their agenda even if the Black Death reappeared and decimated millions. That would be a ‘different department’.

  3. smokingscot Says:

    I noted during one of his recent speeches that Bernie Saunders is no friend of Big Pharma. In fact he thinks they’re very bad indeed. He kicked one donation into the long grass:

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-rejects-ceo-martin-shkreli-campaign-donation/FcSKxu1VIr7pubg9cI3CQN/story.html

    and has a detailed web page on what he plans to do about them.

    https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-to-lower-prescription-drug-prices/

    Now I don’t want to put words into his mouth, but I suspect Bernie’s got an equally jaundiced view of the W.H.O. and many of the international bodies.

    Takes real guts to speak like this in the USA – and I’m glad he’s coming on very well indeed.

    (As an aside, China got so sick fed up with the World Bank that they set up the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank – and that’s acted as a magnet to many countries that don’t want idiot rules for big projects).

    • junican Says:

      ‘The World Bank’ sounds like some futuristic baby factory. Who owns it and what is it for? What has Cameron got to say about it? What is it FOR? Does the USA control it? Who controls it? Why do The People know nothing about it?
      If it can tell Governments like the Government of Greece that it must obey, why did that Government not publicise, far and wide, the persecution?
      The whole situation stinks.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: