Big Pharma sells nicotine patches, gums and inhalers. According the the MHRA in the UK, and the FDA in the USA, those things are harmless. Why so? Surely, since they contain nicotine, they are likely to be a gateway to smoking? But we go further. You can buy the patches and gums without a prescription, which means that you can buy as much as you like. They also claim that it does not matter if you use patches and smoke at the same time. As I understand it, kids (aka ‘young adults’) are not bared from buying patches, etc. There may well be rules, but can anyone see a chemist refusing to sell patches to a young man/woman who looks old enough? Will the chemist demand to see proof of age?
I have just been to Ebay and pretended to want to buy Niquitin. No problem whatsoever. No questions at all. Nothing about age, blood pressure, etc. Anyone can buy that dangerous substance, nicotine. Which just goes to show how much of the waffling about ‘nicotine addiction’ is hypocrisy. I could buy dozens of packets and stick all the patches all over my body all at once. Nobody would give a damn.
What is it with politicians?
Recent under-secretaries of State for Health have all been young women. They have cocked-up again and again. Milton MP was the first that I know of. She cocked-up big time when she declared that the UK Gov was under a legal obligation to do what the FCTC said. What Bullshit! Nothing in the FCTC Treaty is a demand. One of the oft repeated phrases in the FCTC is ‘according to national law’ (words to that effect). In other words, it is up to Governments to decide what laws to create. The FCTC did not impose anything. She was photographed again and again with ASH ET AL. She was unceremoniously sacked and wept. The next one was Soubry MP. She did not know what was in the TPD but committed the UK to it. She too was ‘moved on’ and has since been sacked by PM May.
Why are they always young women? It is not just about smoking. Why are they always young women? Could there be some sort of genetic thing involved? The emphasis seems to be on children’s health, and who are the people who are most likely to be easily swayed when it comes to children’s health than young women?
And yet it is people like Cameron, Brown, May, who appointing young women to be under-secretary of State for Health. Why have we not recently had an old man in that position? The (fake) message ‘for the children’ MUST be accepted by these appointees because they are women. They can be soaked with ‘for the children’ propaganda and have no alternative but to go along with it. They really do have NO alternative. Otherwise, they would be castigated as being un-woman.
I believe that, when the PM appoints people to positions, her first concern is with the high offices of State – Health Sec, Foreign Sec, etc. Lower positions are not important to her. So anyone will do. Who then decides? The probability is that a person will be recommended. Who recommends? It is not unlikely that the ‘advisers’ from the Civil Service will ‘recommend’. “So-and-so is pretty solid. She is voluble and has a good memory. And, she has no qualifications whatsoever other than being female” What can go wrong?
Thus, policy decided by a process of ‘acceptability to the population in general’, backed up by junk science, gets articulated by those women in Parliament, and gets passed.
There is no other explanation for the disaster of ‘plain packaging’.
I must explain why it is a disaster.
It has nothing to do with whether it worked or not. That is a distraction. The critical thing is that it destroyed the ability of consumers to choose as they wish. I am an old adult. If I wish to choose a particular brand of cigs because of the nice colours of the packets, I should be free to do so. Was it Milton MP or Soubry MP who said that she chose to smoke Du Maurier cigs because she liked the green packs?
The disaster lies in the uniformity: the ‘level playing field’; the greyness; the bossiness; the medical porn which has replaced art; etc; but, most of all, the failure of Democracy. Modern Government is not intended to CONTROL citizens. It is intended to free them from oppression. No Government can pass a law which forbids publicans to provide facilities for smokers and call itself ‘democratic’. You see, the idea of a ‘democracy’ DOES NOT mean the tyranny of the majority. It means that people can do what they wish to do, provided that what they do does not greatly damage the ‘demos’ (the people as a whole). Thus, democracy ALLOWS variations. It is not a tyranny.
So when Parliament permitted the Zealots to dictate that pubs could not have smoking rooms, it FAILED to do what it was created for. It permitted tyranny rather than opposing it.
That disaster, in terms of democratic reasoning, has spawned all sorts of similar tyrannies. It is very odd that Politicians fall for the hype again and again and again. What are they afraid of? When the Gov decided that everyone who tells a Supermarket delivery system to use plastic bags is destroying the planet, why did it not outlaw telling supermarkets to deliver in plastic bags?
Over the last few decades, Government has got itself into a glutinous mess. According to a recent survey, people see it as reasonable for smokers to acquire their supplies from ‘sources’ which are not taxed, because cigs are taxed so highly. What can Gov do about the ‘tax avoidance’? The only thing that it can do is spend money on interrupting supplies. That expenditure, by virtue of the enormous problem which it itself has created, is ENORMOUS. Thousands of Customs Officers need to be paid just to check that a person does not have 5 x 200 cigs in his baggage.
That is what Tobacco Control want.
But it will not work and never has done. The blatherings in the MSM about seizures is almost certain to be exaggerated. Does the reporter actually check the supposed seizure? Of course not! He/she accepts what he/she is told.
All the above is about ‘public perception’, which is easily manipulated. How sad is that? How can ‘public perception’ be so easily manipulated?
The truth is that ‘public perception’, for the most part, does not exist. The General Public does not give a damn whether or not there are smoking rooms. The General Public does not give a damn.
Thus, the General Public is not the slightest bit interested nicotine. Nicotine problems will not play a part in the USA Presidential Election. Why not, since smoking bans have played havoc throughout the land?
And yet the Academics say that it is all about the vile effects of nicotine.
I detest them.