When Human Beings Are Subsumed Into a Committee

What happens when a human being joins a committee? The Cambridge dictionary defines the word ‘subsume’ thus:

“to include something or someone as part of a larger group

EG. Soldiers from many different countries have been subsumed into the United Nations peace-keeping force.”

But I think that the word has further implications. ‘Sub’ come from the Latin for ‘beneath’, as in ‘submarine’. There is something about that word which implies more that simply joining a group. There is an element of ‘co-opted’. But people join committees of their own free will, don’t they? Well, yes, but, at the same time, you could say that they allow themselves to be co-opted. That is, to a greater or lesser extent, they surrender part of their individual personality to the group.

But we come up against an interesting twist. A committee is a thing. It is not human.

Now, I am not saying that committees composed of human beings make bad decisions per se. What I am saying is that the humanity of the individuals on the committee goes out of the window. I was a member of a golf committee for some years, and I think that I can safely say that there was little or no discussion of the effects of decisions upon individual members of the club. There was sometimes discussion about whether or not the decision would be accepted by members, but note that ‘members’ means ‘the thing’ known as ‘the membership’. The ‘membership’ is a list of names on a piece of paper (or in a computer). It is a thing.

Chris Snowdon has been going back over the antics of ASH ET AL. (The ‘et al’ is important since ASH is no more than a mouthpiece, whose apparatchiks are ‘marketing experts’. Their job is to translate the edicts of ‘a committee’ from the Society of Physicians’ into soundbites for TV and press releases for the newspapers.

Chris Snowdon’s investigations partly concerned what happened as regards snus in the EU:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/ash-early-years.html

Only Sweden had a significant history of the use of snus. Does anyone know how that use of snus came about? I remember, donkey’s years ago, that chewing tobacco was very common among miners. It is easy to see why. The possibility of a disastrous explosion in a coal mine absolutely demanded ‘no naked flames’. The danger was obvious and accepted by everyone. Not only did chewing tobacco supply nicotine, but it also acted similarly to chewing gum – it kept the mouth moist.

Snus was outlawed throughout the EU – except in Sweden. And yet, the statistics about lung cancer in Sweden were already well-known – there was very much less of it compared with smoking nations. So why did the EU not encourage the use of snus rather than banning it? In fact, it need not have actually encouraged it. It could just have left the situation as it stood and let the market for snus develop as it may.

We might reasonably ask where the humanity in the ban on snus was. It is rather obvious that there was no humanity in it. It was a decision of a committee. Snus was a tobacco product, and it did not matter a damn that it was virtually harmless, or that it would be a ‘good thing’ if smokers replaced cigarettes with snus. Snus is produced by tobacco companies, and is therefore anathema, regardless of the beneficial effects of using snus rather than smoking.

There are other things. For example, it was ASH ET AL who pushed for reduced tar in cigarettes. I know for a fact that the Canadian Government and tobacco companies cooperated to produce a tobacco plant variety which had very little tar. A great success? Not a bit of it! After a while, those sensible people who cooperated with tobacco companies were replaced by ‘a committee’, which pronounced that ‘tar-free’ cigs were no better than ‘tar-full’ cigs. There was no science to that statement whatsoever. There could not possibly be, since it takes decades for the results of a change to ‘tar-free’ cigarettes to emerge. To make things worse, a Judge declared that the Canadian Government’s part in promoting ‘tar-free’ cigs was protected. That is, since the decisions were taken by a Government committee, then those decisions were privileged. That means that the Government can make wrong decisions with impunity from a legal point of view – because it has the power to make wrong decisions. The only recourse that The People have, is to get the Government to repeal those decisions. So the Canadian Government was not at fault in cooperating with Big T to produce a ‘tar-free’ cigarette tobacco. Only Big T was a fault, and only because it described the new cigs as ‘lights’.

===

The above describes the malign and inhuman effect of committees. It reveals why it is that ASH ET AL can propose, without conscience, that the poorest people must be unfairly taxed to ‘help’ them to stop smoking. It reveals why it is that Government, in the form of Parliament and Government Departments treat people like shit.

Depending upon how far you go back in history, there was, once upon a time, a good reason for tobacco (and wine) duties. Those duties were brought in because of political disputes. In the case of tobacco, it was disputes with the American colonies, and in the case of wine, it was a dispute with Portugal. The disputes were sufficient reason. At least, the inhumanity (to wine drinkers and smokers) was intended to benefit the nation overall.

===

But we have seen, in the past few decades, the rise of inhuman committees, inhuman things, which have also revealed the inhumanity of some Governments, especially the English speaking ones, like Ireland, the UK, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. Weird, is it not?, that those nations, which pride themselves on ‘freedom under the law’ are foremost in adopting the jackboot.

What went wrong? Carl Phillips talks about it:

The weakness of ethical thinking in public health: a case study

He talks about the ethics of the Tobacco Control Industry. An Industry is a thing. It has no ethics. It makes monetary profits and prospers, or it makes losses and dies. industry is a thing – it does not have ethics. It cannot have ethics.

Ethics are human ideas. They revolve around ‘Good and Evil’, ‘Right and Wrong’, ‘Donations and Theft’,  ‘An Eye for an Eye’, Kill or be Killed’. Governments came into being precisely to formulate ‘ethical standards’. A Parliament consists of a group of humans (a committee) which must weigh up humanitarian effects of laws and treaties against tax income, the effects of wars, and such things.

It seems to me that the UK Government and Parliament have lost sight of the humanitarian aspects of What they decide. They are things, devoid of humanity. They tax the poorest people, indirectly, more than the richest people. A wealthy person, who drinks the best wine available, at a cost, will not feel the effects of ‘minimum pricing’ of alcoholic beverages. It is the poorest people among us who will feel that effect. That idea is inhuman. It limits freedom.

But there is an even greater limit to freedom of the individual which going through at the moment. There has been a ‘public consultation’, but, as usual, such things are a comical subversion of ‘democracy’. They are ignored, unless they produce inhuman results. “Smoking of tobacco would never have been permitted if the health effects had been known”. Who would have prohibited smoking? That is the crux. Because that person would have acted in an inhuman way. He would have impressed his will upon free people. The consultation concerns the import of the agricultural product know as ‘tobacco leaf’. That product is not a ‘tobacco product’ in itself. It is the raw material from which ‘tobacco products’ are made. In accordance with EU regulations, the import of tobacco leaf is not subject to control, except that VAT, due in the exporting country has been paid. Of course, the importer is required to pay VAT when he sells it on.

Let us be clear. A person who intends to turn the tobacco leaf into smokeable cigs is creating a lot of work for himself. First, the leaf arrives in bits. It would be nice to imagine that you could throw those bits into a machine which shreds and chops them, but, for the ordinary person, who just wants to be self-sufficient and human, such a machine would be prohibitively expensive. They exist, but cost thousands of pounds. Ordinary humans sort out the bits by hand. But that person has not finished. The bits have to be sorted into ‘dry’, ‘a bit moist’, and ‘rather moist’. Only when you have separated the stuff into such groups can you start to chop them up. The ‘slightly moist’ and ‘quite moist’ bits have to be dried a little. The process is messy, and only those who have the time and inclination (self-sufficiency) would contemplate doing it.

And yet, a committee, exploited by the inhuman ASH ET AL, is intent upon disrupting this perfectly legal trade in the UK. It will not disrupt the trade in the rest of the EU. Throughout mainland Europe, people will trade tobacco leaf, and those individual humans who are prepared to process the stuff themselves will be allowed to be self-sufficient.

Apart from down-trodden UK human beings, the UK inhuman plan is to require importers of freely traded ‘agricultural products’ to have to have a licence.

===

What perplexes me is the ethics, as Carl Phillips points out. In the particular matter of importing tobacco leaf in order to be self-sufficient, which is a right of free citizens in normal circumstances, there are ethical considerations. The Government of the UK requires a level of income, which can only be obtained by taxation (we disregard printing money). Everyone who can afford it has to pay some tax. Note the ‘everyone who can afford it’ condition.

Tobacco Control has turned that humane idea on its head. TC has decreed that those who can least afford the taxes must pay them – IN ORDER TO ‘HELP’ THEM STOP SMOKING.

There is the perversion of the idea of ‘help’. That idea depends upon the idea that people demand ‘help’. Not just might need some help, or would like some help, but that they NEED help. That idea is inhuman.

===

It is a fact that committees are things. The snus ban in the EU was a result of a committee meeting. Who were the people on that committee? We do not know. If there were UK participants, those people cannot be tried and convicted of being inhuman. I do not understand why not.

To put it another way, those people are devils. Those who promote inhuman and cruel persecution and punishment should be abhorred. They are inhuman, and treat human beings as things.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “When Human Beings Are Subsumed Into a Committee”

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    The Wannsee Conference was also a committee. It convened to recommend the ‘Final Solution’. It seems ASH and its ilk in the FCTC are seeking their own final solution in the so-called tobacco free end state.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: