Undermining Tobacco Control

Anyone who has been watching the ‘goings on’ about alcohol control cannot but be impressed by the sheer effrontery of the the anti-alcohol Zealots. Even the tiniest deviation from ‘perfect heath’ is highlighted as though it was disaster. ‘Studies have shown ….’

It seems to me that all the recent ‘studies’ have only one objective, which is to get ‘unit pricing’ enacted by law. They are not intended to reduce alcohol harm or reduce alcohol consumption, or solve the problems of alcoholics. They have been produced, at short notice and with all sorts of deviations from the truth, with one objective in mind – minimum pricing.For these people, the clear uselessness of minimum pricing is irrelevant- they have decided, en masse, to push up the price of alcohol. Any ‘law’ which increases the price will do.

But it always has to be ‘a law’.

Note how it was not sufficient for Tobacco Control to agitate for tobacco products which contained less tar, and were thus less harmful, or to agitate for the promotion of snus. In fact, we all know that snus banned throughout the EU, apart from Sweden. No – only bans were agitated for. Oh, and higher taxation. In fact, the two were intertwined – bans and higher taxation. How could politicians, who want to do good, refuse to comply? Reduction in disgusting, filthy, stinking smoking plus more tax income. Any politician who objected was a ‘baby killer’.

So we are inundated with ‘studies’ which promote minimum pricing. Needless to say, the minimum price per unit will be low-ish to start with, but will increase.

Undermining the Zealot’s intentions is very difficult. THEY DEMAND MINIMUM PRICING. It is a replay of the demand for no-smoking on short-haul flights.

But what is the consequence? It is that everyone, except alcoholics, will be ripped off. Alcoholics MUST have alcohol. They cannot help themselves. Therefore they will pay the price, no matter how high, or they will steal what they want.

===

Tobacco Control can only be undermined by refusal to engage on their terms. “Our Children” are not their children. Do you see my point? TC is fond of saying ‘Our children’. The response must be “Our children are not your children”. TC also has a penchant for the word “WE” – “we must do this or that”. It is all totally deliberate, even to the extent of the simple word ‘WE’. Imagine Arnott saying that THEY, the politicians, must enact laws. No, Arnott and co demand that “WE” must enact laws.

As we have said before, again and again, the Zealots must be defunded. All of them. And there is no reason whatsoever that Gov should not do so. Let them survive on voluntary contributions. Why does Parliament make a rod for its own back? It can only be laziness in the sense of ‘easiest way’.

Undermining TC means questioning its basic concepts, and doing so over and over again. It means not being bothered about smoking bans in hospital grounds, etc. They are not worth bothering about. It is the SMOKING BAN which matters and little else.

FOREST is not ‘the voice of smokers’ and never has been. But I do not condemn it. The serious problem with Forest is that complies with the idea of “WE”.

Undermining TC demands that TC cannot claim “We”, and that is of the greatest importance. “We”, The PEOPLE, refuse to accept that ‘they’ are ‘WE’.