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.