It would be lovely to have such factual evidence. At the moment, the evidence can only be deduced.
What do I mean by ‘out of control?’ I mean venturing into areas which are not ‘tobacco related’. Lord Callanan, in his speech in the House of Lords, drew attention to what any sane person would deduce: that just because the molecule, nicotine, can be extracted from cured tobacco plant leaves, or from green leaves, does not mean that ecigs are ‘tobacco products’, or that ecig juice is ‘a tobacco product’. Nicotine can be extracted from many other plants, but I suppose that the easiest way to create the molecule, nicotine, is from tobacco plants. But those plants do not need to be cured to provide the molecule, nicotine. Why bother going to all the trouble of curing the leaves when the substance can be extracted without curing the leaves – and probably more easily? I read a paper from Israel (I think) which described the process of extracting nicotine from both cured leaves and green leaves. I cannot remember what the reason for it was. I vaguely think that more nicotine came from a particular volume of cured leaves than uncured leaves. Well…. That is to be expected, do you not think? When the leaves are cured, their volume shrinks a lot. A green leaf measuring 24″ x 12″ will probably measure no more than 12″ x 6″ after curing. The process of curing does not remove the nicotine – it removes moisture and concentrates sugars which make tobacco taste nice. So it would make sense for a given volume of green leaves to produce less nicotine, by volume, than the same volume of cured leaves. But, there is a cost in time, resources of energy, and effort in curing the leaves. Are those costs allowed for? I don’t think that they were allowed for in the Israel experiments. But I don’t think that costs were what was important in those experiments. They were more about the ease of extraction of nicotine.
Tobacco is cured leaves. There is no need for TC to fudge by describing cured leaves as ‘raw’ tobacco. As regards ‘control’, ‘tobacco’ is cured leaves. It is not ‘raw’ – it is tobacco.
Tobacco is, in the EU, an agricultural product that can be freely traded AND without tariffs. Only ‘tobacco products’ are subject to regulation. That is, the tobacco must be treated in some way to produce a ‘tobacco product’. That is a regulation which the UK has agreed to, and which is law.
But what about interfering with ‘free trade’ by introducing licencing? The requirement for a licence to trade implies a loss of freedom to trade. But that MUST be contrary to the treaties. “There is a treaty which permits Belgian chocolate to be traded freely in within the EU. But an importer, in a specific country, needs a license to import that chocolate”. The need for a licence makes a mockery of free trade. It means that a State can stop the trade altogether. It is worse than a tariff.
Thus we can see why Tobacco Control is out of Control. I has been engineering Controls which make a mockery of treaties. To make things worse, those Controls have nothing to do with Health. They are entirely do with persecution and taxation.
That is why TC is out of control. Our politicians, whilst agreeing that smoking tobacco is dangerous, have allowed themselves to be conned into a position where that danger means that smokers must be persecuted IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE. SHS danger is a fraud, and everyone with any interest in the subject, knows that. There is no way that SHS could cause death within the normal lifespan, or further than that, according to statistical information. So why are so-called ‘respectable’ scientists claiming that SHS is dangerous at a particular moment? I mean someone dropping down dead, in the street, because he/she inhaled a smidgen of tobacco smoke?
But there is something heartening on the scene according to Simon Clark:
It seems that Philip Morris has capitulated. It too wants to exterminate smokers. It wants to ‘evolve’ into an anti-smoking entity. “As part of our efforts to advance a smoke-free world…” said Philip Morris. But you cannot blame such companies for trying to perpetuate their industry. But what is obvious is that ‘The Industry’ has never given a toss about its customers. That unconcern is mirrored by the unconcern of TC. The pretence of concern and worry about the health of smokers is manifested by PP. PP is intended to make smokers afraid. That is all. Nothing else. It is intended to promote fear via the medical porn.
The whole thing will collapse. Ecigs are a likely to be a big part of the collapse of TC. But ecigs are only a part of it. It is right that Phillip Morris emphasise ‘heat not burn’. What is wrong with the statement above, ‘As part of our efforts to advance a smoke-free world’, is the obvious abandonment of its core customers.
But I personally do not give a shit about these manoeuvrings. I shall bend with the wind. I shall do what benefits ME. Not one penny of mine will go to any ‘charity’ whatsoever. I shall pay the absolutely minimum amount of tax, and claim every penny of the allowances which the State provides.
The State has no statistics of how many people would not bother claiming benefits, although, in the weirdest of situations, it has advertised on TV to increase claimants of various benefits.
The UK is going mad.
But no one seems to know how the madness can be neutralised.
We smokers and thinkers have a reasonable idea.
Shall we explore that idea in my next post? I am tired and off to bed.