The ‘War on Drinking Alcohol’ Begins

I must admit that I expected a ‘Framework Convention…….’, but it might be a bit too early for a fully-fledged ‘treaty’. Perhaps there need to be a couple of ‘test cases’ first to see if the idea would ‘fly’. So her it is:

“It also comes as the World Health Organisation (WHO) set a target of reducing global alcohol consumption by 10 per cent by 2025.”

Further:

“Asked the Government’s view on a national target and the new alcohol strategy, health minister Shona Robison said: “We remain determined that Scotland plays its part in helping the WHO achieve a global reduction of 10% in alcohol harm. The refresh of the Strategy is likely to consider how Scotland plays it’s part in targeting and reducing harmful levels of consumption in Scotland.”

The above is from a report in Herald Scotland:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/14552513.Calls_for_laws_to_restrict_alcohol_sales_amid_push_for_national_target_to_reduce_harmful_drinking/

And so it begins. The zealots who have taken over the Scottish Parliament are working for the WHO, whilst being paid by the Scottish people.

I sometimes think about how the ‘knock-on effect’ works. X number of people are paid by Scottish taxpayers, but they clandestinely work for the UN, WHO and EU as well as for the Scottish people. When I worked for the bank, I spent my working time on my bank matters. I did not spend any paid time working for a rival bank, or even a charity, or anything else. But if you read the newspaper article, you will see that those people who are paid by Scottish taxpayers to work for them, but who are also working for the UN etc, whilst being paid by taxpayers to work for them, are also intent upon forcing others, outside of politics, to also work for the UN etc. You will notice, in the newspaper article, that the plan is to force retailers to do unpaid work.

But there is more. ASH ET AL have constantly upped the anti. Their demands have constantly increased the amount of work that taxpayers pay for, in order to further ASH’s aims. For example, Customs Officers have to spend time and effort searching for contraband tobacco products. Those officers have to be paid, and it costs a fortune.

The situation is not unlike Prohibition in the USA. Remember that Prohibition included tobacco as well as alcohol. What happened?

In the first instance, certain religious groups got alcohol and tobacco banned. Those groups did not have to pay a penny. Politicians, well paid by taxpayers, then wasted their paid time shouting. And then a law was passed banning the production of alcohol and tobacco products, but not banning use. Why ban use when the products cannot be obtained? But the policing of the bans cost taxpayers a fortune with no financial return on the costs. Some people got extremely wealthy, but not taxpayers.

===

We now see a repeat in Scotland.

But suppose that people just got fed up and sick to death of these unpaid demands upon their time? It has happened before, but not as much as it is happening now. I personally will not respond to surveys unless I am paid. Who is stupid enough to do otherwise? By the way, I do not mean just clicking an alternative in a simple poll on the internet. Whether I do that or not depends upon my attitude to the poll. For example, there was a Telegraph poll about Brexit and I voted ‘Out’. About 70%  of voters had voted likewise. On the BT poll, the result was similar. But there is a fault with such polls which is that they are ‘self-selected’. They suggest that strongly motivated people vote for ‘Out’, but say little about weakly motivated people.

Scottish politicians are sadly weak. Perhaps that is why they were chosen for this alcohol experiment. I suppose that it was a toss-up between Scotland and Ireland. But what would the Scottish Gov do if retailers demanded to be paid to do the work involved? I do not see why they should not.

But it goes further. Why were retailers forced to pay for shutters to hide tobacco products? As it happens the costs were not impossible, but they were real. Why did not retailers demand that the State should pay those costs?

The problem of costs, and who should pay, is becoming more and more important. The EU has demanded that the ecig industry must pay vast sums to prove that a flavouring to be inhaled via an ecig is harmless. It cannot be done, but what is more important is that the people demanding the tests force the manufacturers to pay for the tests.

What we have been seeing, relative to the UN, WHO, EU is more and more force being exerted. Those organisations were not supposed to have POWER.

Power does not have to be physical, except that, inevitably, ‘brainwashing’ will become physical. I think that it is right that we should always, always, always have the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany in the forefront of our minds. That atrocity has been fundamental. It is IMPERATIVE that that atrocity be not forgotten.

The attempt to exterminate smokers is much the same, without the physical aspect. The same methods have been employed – disgusting, filthy, stinking and harmful to non-smokers.

===

The PEOPLE of Scotland should ask themselves the simple question:

“Do I, as an individual, enjoy a tipple?” If the answer is, “Yes”, then the machinations of the UN, WHO and the EU do not apply to you.  You must do everything that you can to stop the insanity. No, increasing the price of whiskey, beer and lager will NOT stop alcoholics becoming addicted. Increases in prices via taxation just impoverish us all a little more.

When the people of Scotland voted for the Nationalists, did they realise that they were voting for puritans? I have yet to hear Nicola Sturgeon say anything positive, other than the positive of wasting more and more taxpayers’ money.

===

It amazes me that Cameron et al throw £350,000,000 per week into an organisation which produces nothing. Even worse is that a large part of that sum of money is used to persecute the payers, aka taxpayers.

But what is even more scandalous is that people like Cameron are happy to perpetuate the fraud. Why does he do it? I could accept reasoned arguments for staying in the EU, but I cannot accept hysteria and fear. Why does not Cameron explain his conviction that the EU is wonderful? I mean, his personal conviction, and his reasons for his personal conviction. Vague economical blather is no substitute for rational conviction.

===

We speak of the need for EU reform. But that is as nothing compared with the need for UN reform. The UN equals the USA. Ever since WW2, the USA has determined the UN. Equal voting rights is a joke. Vote as the USA dictates or suffer the consequences. When the UN was devoted to keeping the peace, it had a purpose which could be evaluated, and it worked – sort of. It did not prevent Vietnam.

Scotland is a bit not-s0-well. Its politicians are also not-so-well. Scotland is a small country. It ought not permit its politicians to experiment with its People.

 

 

 

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: