Re Tobacco Control,How important is ‘What’as compared with ‘Who’ and ‘Why’? (Part 2)

I got tired last night and went to bed.

‘The what’, ‘the who’ and the ‘why’.

People like Simon Clarke, Chris Snowdon, and others (God bless them!) are very much involved in ‘the what’. Simon has been going on TV and responding to newspaper requests for his views as a representative for smokers, for years. But nothing he has said has made the slightest bit of difference. It is clear therefore that he and the IEA can do nothing about what is happening. There is no real point in talking about the detail of what ASH et al propose.

I’m not quite sure what really IS important, but I am pretty sure, in my own mind, that arguing about whether or not tobacco smoke in cars with children present, harms those children does not matter a toss. Even if you were able to provide evidence that it does not harm them, the ban would still have been proposed and accepted, and passed into law.

I remember, not too long ago, coming home from Manchester airport. I remember sitting in the back of the cab and observing that my good friend and taximan was surreptitiously smoking. You tell me – which is more dangerous? Is it the tobacco smoke or is it his surreptitious smoking? Is it the tobacco smoke, or is it the attempt to hide the smoking? My taximan is a Muslim. He does not drink alcohol, about which we jest sometimes, but he enjoys tobacco. I brought him a couple of sleeves of cigs back.

So I ask again: “WHY?”

Go back to first principles and ask, “Why?” are so many people, like Arnott and Duffy, spending their working lives on forcing people to end a trivial pleasure which might just shorten their lives a tad? Why? I do not understand. Why do they think that it is wonderful that people might live longer in their decrepitude, ‘sans teeth, sans eyes, sans everything’? Why?

In England, ecigs have received a certain amount of approval from the Healthists, but only as a smoking cessation aid. In Scotland and Wales, there is violent revulsion. Why? In the USA, the situation is even worse. There, the Healthists have no compunction whatsoever in lying, again and again, to stop ecigs. Why? The EU TPD aims to cripple ecigs by the equivalent of medicinal regulations. What else can ‘a measured dose’ mean other than much the same thing as a pill?

And yet, that directive will become UK laws in a few days time, and very few UK politicians will object. The directive will be nodded through because the UK is committed to pass whatever laws the EU Parliament does not block.

And that is where we come to ‘the who’. Who are these EU Parliamentary individuals who can block or not block EU directives? Who are they? How do they come to have only negative powers?

I have read tomes about Brexit, and what it will entail. But the reality is emotional. None of us can weigh up the pros and cons with any accuracy. We can only judge using what we can see. What I hate most of all is the absolute inability to reverse any directive. There is no such thing. Weirdly, though, it seems that the EU Elite have decided to ‘suspend’ Shenighan (however it is spelt) so that countries being invaded by arab malcontents and jihadists can block the invasion. Erm… Who gave the EU Elite the power to block Shenighan? How can the Elite do that without amending the treaties?

There’s the rub. And that is tyranny. The laws are absolute – unless the tyrant decides otherwise.

Why is Cameron so insistent that the EU Elite is always right? Why do so many Labour MPs also believe that irreversible laws are wonderful?

Had I been asked, a decade or so ago, if I would like to adopt the Euro, I would have said, “Yes”. But that was when I thought that the Euro was just a common currency. That was when I did not know that the Euro was political in its nature. That was when I did not realise that the Euro was intended to be a weapon. That is when I realised that he World Bank is also a weapon.

It can only be that Cameron and Osborn are either ‘in the know’ or are ignorant. They are either involved in World Government or stupid. I would not mind if they were in favour of world government if they would just come out and say so. There may be solid arguments which support that view.

But the EU project is not the way. The reason is the inability to reverse processes and EU laws. They are set in stone, and only revolution can change them. That is not our way. That is communism. The PEOPLE cannot change the rules, but the ELITE can, and they can do so without notice at any time. That is tyranny.

Cameron, Osborn et al support that tyranny. Why?

I now becomes clear why these people allowed plain packaging of cigs. The decision was taken because, from their point of view, it does not matter at all. It temporarily got the ‘Doctors’ off their backs. What politician wants to be accused of being a baby killer?


Enough for tonight. We have not really looked at ‘the who’ yet.  Who created the FCTC? Enjoying tobacco, which is said to curtail the pains of old age by causing ‘premature’ death,  is such a trivial thing compared with, say, Ebola or AIDS, which decimate young people.

But we should expect nothing else while our PM is in thrall to The Elite. He may not even have realised that he is so in thrall.

I detest them.

But we have not really examined ‘the who’. Perhaps tomorrow.


%d bloggers like this: