Someone drew attention to the World Bank involvement in the Tobacco Control Industry.
Frankly, I do not know enough to judge, but it seems to me that ‘A BANK’ ought not to be involved in TC. Banks are concerned with money, and not ethics. They exist purely to provide a safe place for people to put their money (like a big safe) and facilitate business and purchases via loans. They also provide the means to move money about. Here is a Wikipedia article about the World Bank:
As usual, you must bear in mind the biases of the people who wrote the Wikipedia article.
It seems that the World Bank has no other function than to grant loans, funded by the healthy, wealthy West, to build infrastructures such as roads and ports in impoverished countries. That is a worthy cause, is it not? That is especially so in that the World Bank insists that repayment of loans must be prioritised by the country involved.
But how on earth did the World Bank become involved in tobacco control?
This site gives a clue:
According to the World Bank’s Study, Tobacco has zero benefit in economic terms world-wide. For brevity, let us say that any benefits which accrue to workers in tobacco plantations are far outweighed by the the costs of smoking elsewhere. What this implies is that, from a whole world perspective, it is better for tobacco plantation workers to starve to death at the age of 30, than for people in the healthy, wealthy West to die ‘prematurely’ at the age of 80 years.
But is it true that the World Bank imposes a condition that tobacco must be controlled as a condition of a World Bank loan? I have no idea. It is all secret.
The final version of the TPD was concocted in secret. If Soubry MP and Health Minister is anything to go by, then the TPD was passed without due consideration, either by Parliament in the UK or by similar Parliaments throughout Europe. That is, this TPD has been imposed by A DICTATOR.
It is impossible to ignore the authoritarian impositions of the World Bank. But who controls the World Bank? Some HUMAN BEINGS must be in charge.
Unlike an Ocean, or the atmosphere, where chaos is supreme, organisations such as the World Bank can make whatever rules they wish to make, without democratic scrutiny.
It may well be that what organisations like the World Bank actually do is not the important thing. It may well be that scrutiny and accountability are far, far more important.
Is that not called “DEMOCRACY”?