“Does junk food need the tobacco treatment?”

I am indebted once again to Dick Puddlecote:


I mean, look at this quote:

Overweight and obesity is the leading cause of disease and poor health in Australia,” Dr Gary Sacks, senior research fellow at the World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, says. “It’s fair to compare junk food and tobacco and we can learn a lot from what’s been done with cigarettes.”

I wonder who created ‘the World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention’? Is there really any such organisation, or has it been invented just for the purpose of making that quote? Let’s give an acronym, shall we? WHOCCOP. “World Health Organisation Corruption Conference of the Parties”. The press, of course, would be excluded on the grounds that some delegates would not like to be seen to be at a conference of corrupt officials. A ‘respected’ Doctor/Professor would make announcements.

Such as the above quote.

“It’s fair to compare junk food and tobacco…”

Note the word ‘fair’. You can tell that the verbiage has been carefully composed. The word used is not ‘scientific’ or ‘accurate’ or any other similar precise word. It is a vague, generalised word, indicating that Herr Doctor does not want to be sued by food companies.

So let’s omit the word ‘fair’ and say instead, “Junk food is as bad as tobacco”. Oh dear, we hit another adjective – ‘junk’. Define the meaning of the word ‘junk’, Herr Doctor! Well, there has already been so much deliberate propaganda that everyone knows what ‘junk’ means, don’t they?

Well, I for one do not. I was my practice when on my last trip to Mallorca, to alternate my lunches between a beef burger with salad trimmings on one day and a ham and cheese toasty on the next, also with salad trimmings. Were either, or both, of those meals ‘junk’ food? Not in the least. They were enjoyable snacks which bridged the gap between breakfast and dinner.

But, most importantly, they were just FOOD.

And that is where the argument of Herr Doctor breaks down. Food is food, and tobacco is tobacco. According to the ‘experts’, tobacco is dangerous. Do those same ‘experts’ say that food is dangerous? For that is the crux of the matter. Is food, all food, as dangerous as tobacco? Well, according to Herr Doctor, and if we discount the word ‘junk’ as being meaningless, then that is what he is saying – “All food is dangerous”. You can get very fat by eating far too much ‘healthy’ food, but that is not what he says. He introduces the idea of only foods of which he personally disapproves as being dangerous.

What is really odd is that politicians are so gullible. They are like rich people who lose all their savings to a confidence trickster. There must come a time when the politicians of that future era look back on the politicians of today and despise them.

I mean in the sense of wondering how politicians of today could be duped into thinking that tobacco smoke could be DANGEROUS!.

For is it not true that Tobacco Control has never described tobacco smoke as DANGEROUS? For is it not true that, even with the pressure exerted upon them, ‘proper scientists’ have been unable to find anything ‘dangerous’ is ambient tobacco smoke? There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that politicians have been ‘willingly’ tricked into believing that ‘tiny risk’ equals ‘terribly dangerous’. It really is incredibly stupid to accept such an idea. For example, ice skaters whizz around on the ice rink in the presence of other skaters. Ice skates are made of steel and have sharp edges and points. They are very, very dangerous – but only in certain circumstances. They are only very,very dangerous when an incident actually occurs. As we have just seen on the news, an aircraft has crashed killing about 80 passengers. Aircraft which crash are very, very dangerous, but those which do not crash are very, very safe. We will hear little more about the event because it was not ‘smoking related’ or ‘junk food related’.

Death has become ‘relative’. It is OK to die in an aircraft crash but not OK to die in your bed, if your death is from old age. There is no such thing as death ‘from natural causes’ since all deaths must have a deferable cause.

I continue to be amazed at the actions of politicians. Do they not realise that what seems ‘politically correct’ today will become ‘incorrect’ tomorrow? If you have no PRINCIPLES, such as ‘free speech’ or ‘freedom of the individual’, you have nothing at all? It continues to amaze me that Cameron agreed to Plain Packaging, and that Osborne introduced the sugar tax. How pathetic is it possible to be?

And yet these self same people would bomb places like Syria without giving a shit about ‘collateral damage’ – being anyone who just happened to in that place at that time.

But, somehow, these people just walk away and make fortunes. How is that possible? No wonder that Cameron resigned – he would no doubt be aware that his potential vast earning would be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny had he stayed on as an MP.

I hate these people. I really, really do. They are the New Aristocracy. They may not ‘own’ vast tracks of the land of England anymore, but they still own THE WEALTH of the Nation. I hate and despise them. It is weird that I use the word ‘hate’ since I do not actually hate any individual. I don’t hate the Duke of Westminster even though he is DISGUSTING, FILTHY, STINKING parasite.

But how can we smokers influence our local MPs? We cannot since we are ‘unclean’. But I err when I say ‘We smokers’ since most smokers are either demoralised or stupid. I make the difference between demoralised and stupid because either they know what is happening or they do not.

But I become more and more and more content as I see Tobacco Control becoming more and more demanding and more and more split. COP7 was perfect. It wasted tons of cash, created mayhem, and all that was involved was ecigs, and, at the time, New Delhi was swathed in poisonous smog. The event in Cancun was just the same – unseasonable cold and rain.

The Zealots of all kinds have hit a big, big brick wall. That wall is ‘public opinion’, especially concerning food. There is no such thing as ‘junk’ food. But while we have cowardly politicians, fearful and timorous creatures, we will have no respite.

What is the answer?

It is very, very simple. Defund the appropriate University Departments. Insist that student fees are not used for propaganda.




6 Responses to ““Does junk food need the tobacco treatment?””

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Junican, yes, if TC was defunded and forced to compete on a level playing field with those of us on the other side…. 99% of them would disappear off to other concerns and the 1% that was left would go down like a … like a I dunno but they’d go down!

    See this: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/28/meat-tax_n_13291506.html?ncid=fcbklnkcahpmg00000001

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      Thanks for the link. I clicked on it but did not read it. ‘A meat tax will save lives’? That statement misses out all the steps in-between. How will it do so, and what is meant by ‘save lives’? Does ‘save lives’ mean ‘postpone deaths’?
      Who the hell is paying for these studies? There is a huge difference between studies which extend our knowledge and those which state the obvious.

  2. Darryl Says:

    Health zealots are now invading the work place. A NSW government initiative. No more hamburgers for lunch. Is there no escaping these clowns?


    • junican Says:

      I clicked on the link but would not go past the first page, to be honest. Those smiling faces debunked the content. ‘Clowns’ is the right word. They are comical in their simplicity. A hamburger is a meal which is quick to eat and which is nutritious. It permits a person to have lunch and then have some time to read the paper and have a fag.

  3. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Or assassinate the pricks Junican.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: