Down-Grading Tobacco Control

No wonder ASH ET AL are demanding that the Gov publishes the ‘new’ tobacco control strategy. Until the Gov does so, ASH ET AL are in limbo. They have nothing to do. We must understand that the purpose of ASH is publicity. That is what it exists for, and nothing else. I have often seen it said that ASH originated some sort of scientific study concerning smoking, but ASH is not equipped to originate such studies. It is a publicity organisation and nothing else. Arnott does not have the skills to decide such things.

ASH is a tiny ‘shill’ cabal, acting as a cover for ‘Big Academia’.

Think about it.

If ASH is defunded, then the taxpayer will no longer pay for the publicity stunts which ASH dreams up via its connections with the MSM. When I say ‘dreams up’, I  mean the clever interpretations of studies etc which are so phrased as not to be actually lies – even though they are.

What, for me, is odd is that tobacco companies do not seem to have questioned the veracity of the medical porn pics which they are obliged to cover their cig packets with. Maybe they are biding their time until ASH ET AL go too far. In my opinion, ASH ET AL have already gone way too far in the claims of tobacco harm as depicted on cig packets. But I can understand if tobacco companies want to wait until the claims as so outrageous that a legal challenge will be successful, and the whole edifice will collapse.

Is a pity that such an eventuality has not yet arisen regarding the smoking ban. An intelligent person can see that there are manifold ways for smokers, non-smokers and bar workers, or whoever, to be segregated to a reasonable extent.

How do these people get away with it? It can only be that the people who could call a halt are terrified of doing so – or that they just do not give a damn.

But, from time to time, the desperation of ASH ET AL surfaces. Until the new ‘strategy’  is published, ASH ET AL have nothing to do. They are a waste of time and money. They need the ‘strategy’ to be published before they can issue their prepared press releases. Until then, they are being paid for doing nothing at all.

Being paid for doing nothing at all seems to be normal in Academia. Or, even worse, Academics are paid by Big Industry to produce results favourable to that Industry. Big Pharma comes to mind.

Is it wrong for our Government to stop wasting tax monies on studies which produce minor variations of possibilities and probabilities?

It seems to me that Tobacco Control is quietly being down-graded. The Academics are squealing because they they lack an income stream. In the grand scheme of such pyramids, lack of funding in Academia translates into ‘nothing to do’ for ASH ET AL.

Only after ASH ET AL have ceased to exist will ‘common sense’ (supported by ‘true’ science) take back control. Sooner or later, the owners of a bar/pub will not stop people smoking, and the anti-smoking law will quietly fall into disuse. It has happened before, again and again. A law does not have to be repealed. It will be effectively repealed when it is ignored by everyone, including lawmakers.

At some point in the future, people will ask how a vast international organisation such as the UN got itself hung up about tobacco and other harmless but enjoyable substances. Sooner or later, a Government will realise that ‘one size fits all’ is causing its people great harm.

Thus, the UN will be seen to be a harmful organisation because it cannot function other than ‘one size fits all’. For it to do otherwise would bankrupt the nations which fund it.


So, it really is surprising that the FCTC has actually lasted, as a blueprint, for so long. Why has that happened? It is because most nations did not know what they were signing up for, and that Governments were too weak, and too dishonest to admit that they did not know what they were signing.

The same applies to Climate Control.

The fact is that we are seeing the quite downgrading of Tobacco Control along with other taxpayer funded ‘initiatives (aka ‘wastes of money’).

The sooner the downgrading has a major effect (closure), the better.


11 Responses to “Down-Grading Tobacco Control”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    All well said as always Junican! 🙂

    I agree in particular with this:

    “So, it really is surprising that the FCTC has actually lasted, as a blueprint, for so long. Why has that happened? It is because most nations did not know what they were signing up for, and that Governments were too weak, and too dishonest to admit that they did not know what they were signing.”

    I’m sure the whole initial spate of signatures took place in the atmosphere of “Yep! I’ll sign my name that I hate cancer, love apple pie, and enjoy a good stout!” There. Done. All over and back to biz….

    WHOOOPS! They didn’t realize the Krazies were going to come back and actually try to ENFORCE the craziness… but by then they’d already signed it, PLUS they made the mistake that so many have made so often in dealing with the Antismokers: treating them as sane people who will be satisfied with each little round of new demands and then go away… which, of course, they never do.

    Let’s hope ASH sits on the sidelines twiddling its thumbs while waiting until they fall off and get gobbled up by some hungry pigeons!


    • junican Says:

      Someone in the Foreign Office signed the UK up to the FCTC. God only knows who.
      Someone somewhere said that the persons who sign these things should be named and shamed. Thus, Soubry MP, the under-secretary of State for Health, signed the UK up for the latest TPD while thinking that ecigs had been dropped. Then she was moved to another dept and then sacked. A cover up? Of course it was!! The Minister who committed the UK is no longer a Minister. How can Parliament accept Article 20 (about ecigs) when it KNOWS that the Minister who signed up for it was ignorant of the facts?
      To me, it is incomprehensible.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    ASH should certainly be defunded having wrecked my social life and made my favourite cigarette now unobtainable. Just had a holiday in Copenhagen Junican. Proprietor run bars of a certain size still permit smoking. A very happy time is had by all. Needless to say they are very busy with sociable happy smokers. Remember when our pubs were like that ? !

    • junican Says:

      I am off to Mallorca on Monday. Hardly anyone sits inside the bars as they used to do. The ‘artistes’ have to stray outside to be heard. The damage done by TC is enormous, but there are no studies about it. Sooner or later, a country or island will rebel. It is inevitable.

  3. slugbop007 Says:

    To Timothy Goodacre Says, What is your favourite cigarette? Maybe I can find you a distributor.


  4. Roberto Says:

    Junican, I agree in general with your comments, however you should not generalise to all “Academia” the fanaticism, deception and corruption prevalent in that part of “Academia” that relates to Tobacco Control and Public Health lifestyle management. Academics (in general) are certainly far from the ideal (or rather cliche) of being ‘purely objective and altruistic folk dedicated to spread knowledge’. Like all human endeavors, academia has a lot of defects: egotistic big ego leading characters that manipulate research, it is subjected to all sorts of vested interests, to fads, to ideological abuse and to many other deformations. But not all academics and not all areas of Academia are dishonest or manipulative.

    Academics in Public Health tend to be low quality. Most of them are really activists and advocates in the disguise of academics. Their professional activity is extremely deformed (from their funding) by the (not innocent nor altruistic) vested interests of the pharmaceutic industry and to the politics and state funded finances of the anti-tobacco lobby. This type of professional deformation is absent (or at least it is much less binding) in other areas of academia, such as (for example) astrophysics or water treatment.

    Finally, even in medical science there is a lot of honest academic work. We cannot reduce medical research to the junk science promoted by Tobacco Control. I had cancer (a non–Hodgkins lymphoma) 10 years ago. I survived it and I am alive thanks to medical academics having done sound research in treating this cancer.

    • junican Says:

      An excellent comment, Roberto. You are right, of course. I too had a malignant cancer. It was a small growth on my skin near my eyebrow. It was nothing really, but it was growing and bled from time to time. I thought that it was a ‘blackhead’ and squeezed it, but it would not go away. It turned out to be a form of malignant cancer which grows very slowly, but it was ‘malignant’. The Surgeon who removed it said that the main danger was that it would penetrate the bone.
      The ‘Academics’ which I complain about are those which use the Academic system – the certainty which ‘Experts’ claim – to further a political agenda. I hate that beyond imagining. Academia should be about FACTS. Of course, there will be opinions about such facts, and such discussions are right and proper. But certain parts of Academia have descended into propaganda.

  5. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Have a good holiday Junican !

  6. garyk30 Says:

    Hope you have a good Holiday!!

  7. junican Says:

    Thanks for the good wishes!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: