A Plague of Locusts

Most people of a certain age will recall the tale of the ‘Plague of Lucusts’ from the Old Testament. God punished the Egyptians (?) for some perceived misbehaviour by sending a plague of lucusts to destroy their crops. I could think of simpler ways for an Almighty God to punish a Nation of evil-doers, perhaps simply by disappearing them and any memory of them. But a wise and all-knowing Almighty God would know what persons were the ivil-doers and disappear only them. He would implant a memory in the good people that the evil-doers had died for one reason or another – perhaps at sea, so that the absence of a body would not be remarkable.

Readers should not draw from the above an opinion that I am irreligious. If there is a God, as described (all powerful, all knowing, a spirit, etc), then it is impossible for me to even begin to understand the nature of such a Being.

But I wonder if the Almight God has sent down a ‘Plague of Locusts’ to test our resolve? How else can you describe the Zealots who are doing everything that they can to stop us enjoying ourselves, even if we shorted our lives from the blink of an eye to the twitch of a finger –  or vice-versa, whichever is quicker.

So we have then academics like Chapman, Glantz, etc, who are determined to persecute smokers via taxes and bans, but who seem to be immune themselves from taxes and bans, or any other sort of discipline. They can rant, cheat via statistics, make demands of our rulers to do as they say, and call politicians murderers if they do not comply. How else did the medical porn get on cig packets unless politicians suffered some sort of blackmail?


I think that politicians brought down the Plague of Locusts a long time ago. They did so when the introduced the Health and Safety at Work Bill. I suppose that every Nation in the EU has something similar. Certainly, the USA does, but I am not sure about Syria and other Nations of that ilk.

So what was wrong with the Health and Safety at Work Act?

Well, nothing really, apart from the juxtaposition of ‘health’ and ‘safety’. The two things are quite different. That juxtaposition is similar to ‘overweight or obese’. There too, the two things are quite different. But once you conflate two situations, which are quite different, then you create the confusion which Zealots can exploit.

And exploit that confusion they do, with relish.

What do we mean by ‘Safe’? One could use a building site as an example. It is reasonable to expect employers to ensure, as far as possible, that their brickies can do their job of laying bricks without the risk of falling off ladders. Thus, scaffolding is provided. Bricks are not normally carried up by hod-carriers these days – hoists are used. But what have all those things got do with ‘health’? I see no connection. Accidents might cause damage, but not ill-health. Well, not as an immediate consequence.

Is that the problem? The immediacy of the consequences?

Thus, a person who works in an environment where some contagious disease is prevalent, then it is incumbant upon the employer to protect that person against infection. Wierd, is it not, that doctors in their surgeries and nurses in hospitals do not protect themselves against infection, other than in extreme cases, such as ebola. Why do such doctors and nurses not protect themselves by wearing full-body insulating suits and masks? What about the resposibility of NHS hospital managers’ responsibility that such doctors and nurses do so?

It can only be that the risk of infection is tiny.

Is it not weird that people who work in an unhealthy environment, such as a hospital, are considered not to be ‘at risk’ from infections, whereas bar staff are considered to be at such risk as a result of SHS?

The fact is that there was never any risk from SHS to either the safety or the health of bar workers. Were they ‘safe’ in their working environment? Sure they were, provided that a gas canister did not explode. Were the ‘healthy’ in that environment? Of course they were! If they were healthy to start with, they would be healthy at the end. Where is the contrary evidence? THERE IS NONE!

But again and again, I come back the the argument that politicians are to blame. They were to blame when the did not differenciate between ‘Health’ and ‘Safety’ in the H & S Act. They do it all the time. They were to blame when the majority of them wanted to stay in the EU against all the evidence that it was and is a massively expensive FOLLOWER.

The idea of a FOLLOWER is not easy to understand. You have an impression tha the EU leads. It does not. It FOLLOWS. Why is there a ban on snus throughout the EU except Sweden, where snus originated? It is because no Nation, other than Sweden, had a history of snus use. The benefits of long-term snus use in the avoidance of lung cancer were irrelevant in that regulatory atmosphere. So who decided on and created that ban? I’d bet a pound to a penny that such a ban has never been properly approved. The mere fact that the EU Parliament might have passed some regulation which included that ban does not constitute National imperative.

And has that not also been a huge problem with the EU? Directives have been passed without the parties who passed them having the foggiest idea what they were about. It is very easy to bury some deleterious edict within a thousand page diatribe. After all, what is the TPD other than a diatribe? Couched as ‘a directive’, it is in fact a propaganda instrument. The medical porn on cig packets is propaganda, and only propaganda. None of those pictures actually portray REAL incidents of smoking harm.

I wonder if tobacco companies are biding their time until the Zealots go too far? They mat be waiting until a pic of someone hanging themselves appears, ostensibly due to smoking, and then take that particular pic to court, and demand ‘proof’ that the person pictured actually hanged himself because he smoked. At the moment, it seems that “Public Health” is like the Wild West. There is no ‘law’ as regards what they can say. But WHO ARE PUBLIC HEALTH REPRESENTATIVES? We in England have the ‘Public Health’ agency, a government organisation. It has declared ecigs to be ‘safe’ for all intents, but not that they are not ‘unhealthy’.

There is, again, the stupidy of correlating ‘Health and Safety’. Are ecigs ‘Safe’, even though they might possibly be ‘Unhealthy’? Are there things which are ‘Unsafe’ but ‘Healthy’? Skiing come to mind.


I continue to be amazed that politicians are so vulnerable, and I do not understand why. We stagger from crisis to crisis only because politicians cannot see the difference between ‘accident’ and ‘consequence’.

So, because of the ineptitude of Government, we now have a ‘Plague of Locusts’, such as ASH ET AL, pestering Government to do as they say. All the YouGov surveys which show that non-smokers want smokers to be penalised and ostracised never ask if those non-smokers want to take up the burden of taxes which smokers endure.


It is in the simplistic ‘questionnaires’ that YouGov et al that distortions of Public Opinion reside. EG, no one in their right mind, who was not a anti-smoker Zealot would bother with a YouGov survey of OPINIONS, as compared with facts.

I gave up on YouGov over 12 months ago. It was blatently corrupt. There were so many surveys about the use of certain products that it became obvious that the surveys were just advertising.


Wherever the ‘Plague of Lucusts’, in the form of organisations like ASH, came from, even if they came from Almighty God, they are still a ‘Plague of Locusts’. They contribute nothing to National Wellbeing. They destroy everything in their path.




2 Responses to “A Plague of Locusts”

  1. smokingscot Says:

    Just to show how highly the establishment regards the UN.

    They have decided:

    “Antonio Guterres, the 67-year-old former secretary of Socialist International, will succeed Ban Ki-moon on January 1.”


    I believe it’s a five year term, and usually they get two terms in office, so Guterres will be close to 77 when his second term expires.

    Ban Ki-moon was 62 when he took the post and will be 72 when he leaves it.

    By the by, the whole “election” process is decided by 15 countries.


    • junican Says:

      Strange…. The last link said nothing about Ronaldo.
      It always seems to me that the voting systems in the UN are rather childish in that there are tit-for-tat vetoes. Russia will veto a USA candidate and vice versa. So the UN ends up with a Sec Gen from a minor country. That alone suggests that the the Sec Gen is just a figurehead. In that case, who is/are the real powers behind the throne?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: