The ‘WHO’ of Tobacco Control

No one knows. What we can surmise is that there are several hundreds/several thousands/several hundreds of thousands of them, spread out in ‘the institutions’. The clever thing is that these people have arranged that the costs are paid by taxpayers, students and industry. They have got away with it because politicians are unaware of the waste of a few million pounds. For example, a person who earns a million pounds a year would hardly be likely to notice that servant is pinching sugar, tea, etc, from the kitchen.

My point is that it only takes a few millions of pounds per an to create mayhem. Is it not true that every press release by ASH et al, and every TV appearance by Arnott et al, is designed to produce mayhem? When ASH says, “We are worried….”, is it not true that these people are not in the least bit ‘worried’, but that they are just using words to frighten people?

But what is really, really important is not the monetary cost. It is the WASTE. For example, how, in the morass of really important things that Parliament needed to discuss, did plain packaging of cigs become important enough to require parliamentary time? It makes no sense. Not did ‘smoking in cars with kids present’.

WHO provided the parliamentary time for consideration of these pointless projects?

Our political system is sick.

Since both political parties are essentially the same, and cannot be otherwise due to externalities, then we voters must stop voting. That is the only way to worry the Elite in the sense that they have no mandate, even if they have the majority.


8 Responses to “The ‘WHO’ of Tobacco Control”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Junican, I’d have to disagree on the “stop voting” part. Go out and vote for anyone not in the major parties or even do a write in (Is that allowed over there?) or damage the ballot in some way so that manual counting/intervention is needed. But *DO* go out to vote so that at some point when someone (hopefully someone who’s not an outright fruitcake) different manages to get in the real running that they’ll have the apparent initial backing of the “dissatisfied voters” that they might actually have a shot at building momentum toward a win.

    – MJM
    P.S. And, if you’re sufficiently unhappy with things to want to make a further statement, print up fifty or 250 flyers about smoking or whatever you feel needs a bit more knowledge about out there and hang out outside the polling place handing them out as people are heading in. A lot of times people are unsure about their vote and are open to at least taking a quick look at what they’re handed in that situation in case it might give them some reason to pull the lever for a particular candidate and a justification for it if they’re talking about it in the pub afterward!

    • junican Says:

      I do get carried away sometimes. Perhaps I should have said, “Do not vote for any of the parties which are persecuting you”. Even so, politicians DO want legitimacy via most of the population voting. Without that legitimacy, politicians are batting on a sticky wicket. Even Saddam Hussein engineered wonderfully supportive popular acclaim! But you are right. Better to vote for the ‘Raving Loonies’ than not to vote at all.

  2. Rose Says:

    Not voting counts as silent acquiescence.

  3. Samuel Says:

    ” For example, a person who earns a million pounds a year would hardly be likely to notice that servant is pinching sugar, tea, etc, from the kitchen.”
    Earning a million Pounds a year is something different from simply having it. The political system is sick because the economic system is diseased. At one time a Pound Sterling was exactly that: a pound of silver. And it had to be earned. And governments, to get it, had to be judicious in how much and how often they stole it from their subjects (tax slaves) because they weren’t stealing pounds of silver, they were stealing weeks and months and years of hard labor. They were stealing deprivation and sacrifice where people who worked for silver went without in order to save, today, so they could provide for themselves, later, when work was no longer possible or to provide for their children to improve the condition of the future of their lives.
    Governments had to be very careful in their theft because too much would drive their tax slaves to desperation and revolt.
    Now a Pound is just a piece of paper. More likely it’s just an electric journal entry. It is, technically, borrowed – from the future – but inflation and careful devaluation will reduce the cost, in taxation, that government faces when it pays back (if it ever does) these debts.

    Because, in effect, the government may have, today, unlimited paper or electric Pounds and never has to openly face its tax slaves with a brazen taking of their earnings and savings and can, instead, steal from their futures and their children’s futures without openly raising taxes they face no serious resistance even while even the ignorant can feel, somehow, that something is wrong they cannot place their fingers on what, exactly, is wrong. It is a very clever game of shells and manipulation and it has allowed government to do whatever it wants, no matter how trivial or senseless, because cost doesn’t matter and because the more trivial things it does the more distracted and confused people are about what government is doing and the more insane the people look who have parsed out what is really going on.

    • junican Says:

      I have been aware for some time that Government uses inflation to devalue the interest that they pay on borrowings. That is why they really, really detest deflation. As you say, inflation equals ‘printing’ more money (putting more pounds and pence into circulation), however it is done. In effect, the Gov is paying no interest at all since the interest is less valuable, at the time of payment, than the original capital was in terms of purchasing power.
      So why do banks and insurance companies buy Gov debt? Partly because they are forced to do so and partly because they are expert enough to buy low and sell high(er). Also, they are still able to a make lots of money by clever investment of the rest of their funds on the stock exchange, or by lending.
      So what about the capital that the Gov borrows? It is rolled over and rolled over – until a revolution wipes it all out.

  4. Ed Says:

    Eh MJM, If public votes count, what happened at Colorado?

    Although I’m from the UK, this move by the establishment made me a little slack jawed!

    The big trouble in the UK is that we are stuck firmly in a left/right paradigm and the difference between left and right is like the difference between coke and pepsi.

    • junican Says:

      ‘Slack jawed’ is the precise phrase! That’s how I felt. But if the GOP in Colorado followed its own rules as written and agreed, then that’s the way it is. It is the rules which are wrong.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: