Dare the UK Enact the Tobacco Products Directive As It Now Stands?

Public Health England has endorsed ecigs. The Royal College of Physicians has endorsed ecigs.

But it is true that both of them have avoided criticising Article 20 of the TPD which deals with ecigs. Even so, there are criticisms implied. For example, if ecigs are OK and safe enough, why should advertising be severely restricted? Ought it not to be the other way round? Also, why should the nicotine strength be limited to a low level, and why should e-liquid be sold in such small quantities? Is it not perfectly obvious that Article 20 was cobbled together, behind closed doors, by ‘a committee’ which just wanted to reach some sort of compromise? I remember reading in an EU document, about the maximum strength of nicotine permitted in e-liquid, that the decision was based upon an average, although I’m not sure what it was an average of. How does that average help a person who is used to inhaling quite a lot of nicotine by virtue of smoking a lot? Of what use is an average to such a person? Such a person would require a stronger level than the average to replace his daily, hourly, nicotine intake – at least at first.

So how can the Government even contemplate enacting such ill-considered legislation? Regardless of Treaty Obligations, surely there must be a way to send obviously stupid clauses back to be reconsidered?

There is a weird thing about Treaties and I suspect that many MPs do not know this. The Government of the day makes Treaties, and it does not need the permission of Parliament to do so. Until recently, there was not even an obligation to place those Treaties before Parliament at all. Only a few years ago, was the Government obliged to publish the details and put that publication in the Commons library. Interested parties could contest the Treaty, and force a discussion in Parliament.

What seems to have happened in recent times is that Treaties have been created which permit the creation of other treaties (note the lack of capitalisation) without recognition that the new treaty is a separate treaty. Thus, the TPD is a separate treaty within the general Treaty which permitted such things. Further, Article 20 0f the TPD is itself a separate treaty, within the TPD treaty, within the original Treaty.

Does anyone know what original Treaty created the first Tobacco Products Directive? Everything is shrouded in shadows. Where did the Treaty power to create a Tobacco Directive come from? Does anyone at all know?

These Directives, along with the FCTC treaty, take power out of the hands of UK voters. Our country cannot be different. We must conform. Oh, except that the persecution of smokers (and vapers) is permitted to be greater, but not less. It is called ‘gold plating’. Personally, I would prefer to call it ‘shit plating’.

We are passing through a period in the history of mankind which is a combination of medieval superstition and greed. And yet, at the same time, we are the longest-lived in the history of mankind; we have more knowledge of the universe than ever before; we can create power unimaginable to our forebears; we have put a man on the moon. And yet, our Governments fiddle and faff about with life-style control. What makes things even worse is that they clearly have no idea what they are doing. At a stroke, the politicians killed pubs. Thousands have closed in the last few years, and they started to close shortly after the smoking ban.

===

But – Sod them. As is ALWAYS the case, picking the low fruit is easy. It has ALWAYS been easy to ban things where it is easy to exert control. It is ten times more difficult to do so when it is almost impossible to exert control. What ALWAYS happens is that ‘regulations’ are complied with until they become obviously stupid, at which point no one takes any notice of them any more. Is there still such a thing as ‘drinking up’ time? It used to be the case that pubs stopped serving at, say, 11 pm and customers had to ‘drink up’ by 11.30 pm. Does that law still exist? I haven’t heard a publican shout, “Drink up” for many years.

===

So, will Parliament pass the TPD? No, it will not. Why? Because it is not involved. It gave away its ‘power to decide’ long ago.

Advertisements

10 Responses to “Dare the UK Enact the Tobacco Products Directive As It Now Stands?”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    “As is ALWAYS the case, picking the low fruit is easy.” And particularly the case when done by the Antismokers. I just got done pointing out somewhere that when they can’t get an outright ban in areas like beaches and parks, the Antis will say, “Well, how about simply allowing a “voluntary” ban and allowing us to hang a few signs asking smokers not to smoke near the children in the playground?” etc. Of course it’s hard to deny such an innocent request for “voluntary” behavior, so the local Coucil/whatever will pass it.

    The signs however are then made up to LOOK like they’re full official “No Smoking Upon Pain Of Life Imprisonment And Torture!” signs and most smokers simply “obey” them. Then, a year or so later, instead of accepting their “victory” at that level, the Antis will come BACK to the Council and say “Everyone is SOOooo happy and cooperative except for a very few nasty antisocial malcontents who are disturbing the peace and joy and happiness of everyone else and the children at the park by going up and “blowing smoke” in their faces. (In the new Antismoker Dictionary, smoking within 50 feet of someone is the definition for the term “blowing smoke on someone.”) So the Council then of course goes ahead with the full ban they refused to even contemplate before since it seems to be so widely and uncomplainingly accepted by 98% of the general populace (or at least so they’re told… and of course there’s no actual data to refute the claim.)

    :/
    MJM

    • junican Says:

      That is a scenario which might occur in the US. In the UK, the probability is that such notices will say something like, “NO SMOKING!!!” It is as simple as that. No ‘please or thank you’.
      What amuses me about playgrounds in parks is that almost all the users of those places will be ‘the lower sorts’. Thus, it will be almost certain that mothers will congregate together, and that those who smoke will light up. Thus, the stigmatisation will fail.
      Beach bans are a means of stigmatisation.
      But what is critical is to understand that it is POLITICIANS who do the dirty deed. It is politicians who make the decisions. Thus, it does not really matter about arguing about the ASH propaganda and research. What matters is the FEAR of politicians.

      • Jude Says:

        They are trying to get the very nasty anti-smoker’s to do the policing for them, by making them feel they have a right to accost people in public spaces. These people are already very selfish and arrogant, so this added implication of power just feeds the beast.

        I recently told one of these intolerant prigs, that if they don’t want to be around people vaping, then they should ask the vapers politely, to stop, or leave the area themselves. Their view is that they shouldn’t have to ask politely, or at all, that there should be bans, in other words they want to use the law to stop someone doing something that they don’t like.

        As these fanatical anti-smokers do not consider that they should be polite and considerate of vapers/smokers or anyone else they think is beneath them, I no longer feel I need to be polite to them. If they prod their noses into my business, or bleat about what I can and cannot do, according to their intolerance and bigotry, they get a firm “fuck off”, if that shocks or offends them, they have no-one else to blame but themselves, this is the society they promote.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        Jude, totally true and well-stated. And setting up the laws depending upon “community policing” is HIGHLY irresponsible: politicians who vote for such things should be threatened with lawsuits for damages resulting since they enact the laws with clear knowledge that they will likely produce such damages.

        – MJM

      • junican Says:

        Jude and MJM. On their own property, these people have a right to talk to other people. Outdoors and on other people’s property, they have no automatic right to speak to people they do not know. They need to say, “Excuse me, do you mind if I speak to you?” before they say anything else. We generally automatically sense this, in that we are normally tentative when we talk to people we do not know. We say, “Nice day today”, and if the other person says, “Yes, it is, and what a change!”, then we venture a bit further in establishing a conversation. We DO NOT approach strangers and start telling them off. I suspect that, when that happens, the recipient of the abuse is shocked and does not know how to reply. “Fuck off!” is one way to address the abuse of privacy, but it might be better to have a bit of fun. “Erm… When did I permit you to speak to me? How DARE YOU speak to me without an invitation? You have invaded my physical and mental territory. Go away”.

        The only real community policing is fining publicans enormous amounts of money if they dare to oppose the dictats of the Politicians. Insults do not matter at all.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Yes i use ‘ fuck off’ too. I make a point of smoking in parks.

    • junican Says:

      I do not enter parks. They exist for people who live in high density housing and who do not have a decent garden of their own. The word ‘parks’ is irrelevant. Always avoid discussing a ban in parks or beaches. Always talk about ‘the open air’.

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        The problem with parks is that they are deadly to many children. A good bit of the space within parks is covered with a nasty greenish growth of thin dagger-like life forms that spread death through bio-chemical warfare.

        It is not known how many children die from asthma attacks because unthinking, uncaring, or just plain bare-assed ignorant parental figures allow their children to enter these Playlands Of Death. To make things even worse there are avian and mammalian disease vectors that thrive within the walls and fences of these Extermination Emporiums. Again, the number of innocent young tykes bitten by rabid “squirrels” (cute name, but basically rats with fuzzy tails) or who eat disease infested pigeon droppings when they can’t find cigarette butts to munch on is simply uncounted. Perhaps if their corpses were left in place as a reminder we would see more of a push to do something about these Horrendous Hell-Lands of Hideousness.

        There’s a simple solution, one that would make these so-called “parks” safer for ALL our children instead of those just lucky enough to be born without allergies and rich enough to be vaccinated against park-prolific disease. All that’s needed is concrete. Coat the surfaces of urban parklands in healthy, clean, pure concrete of sufficient thickness to overcome the baleful power of grass.

        To get a real sense of the awful power of The Grass, listen to this short but wonderful song by Malivina Reynolds, “God Bless The Grass”:

        Those of us fighting the Antismokers are the grass.

        – MJM

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        Malvina’s song is followed by several pf her other good ones, including a radical feminist one seemingly titled “We’re going to screw the judge” sung to the tune of “When Johnny comes marching home again…” She’s best known for “Little Boxes” and “What Have They Done To The Rain?” “It Isn’t Nice” and “Love Is Like A Magic Penny.”

      • junican Says:

        A pretty song.
        Many years ago, herself and I went to York for a weekend. The old settlement of ‘Yorvick’ is in the city centre, but buried deeply underground. You have to go down many steps or take the lift.
        What is odd is that the old huts in which people lived thousands of years ago were not demolished, or their timbers used for other purposes. One wonders what happened that caused the people living in that area to abandon their huts as they stood at the time and go elsewhere. I suspect that the most likely reason is that they were flooded, and that the people retreated to higher ground. Over the centuries, sediment and muck built up until the huts were covered. Then the waters retreated, making the land thereabouts available. And the grass grew, and trees grew, ……

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: