Happy Christmas to All the Exploited

In the last couple of years, I have put aside enmities at this time and even expressed benediction on the likes of Arnott et al.

No more.

Only recently has the correct word come into my mind about the treatment of smokers. That word is ‘Exploitation’.

Why do not ASH ET AL demand Prohibition? The fact that widespread Prohibition of tobacco in the USA around 1925 had to be repealed ought not to stop them. It is the principle of the thing, innit? It seems that ASH ET AL would be quite happy for burglary to be legal, provided that only poor people were burgled – burglars who targeted rich people would be condemned and hung.

Slavery takes many forms. One might reasonably ask for a definition of ‘slave’. I think that the type of slavery which Wilberforce opposed was INVOLUNTARY slavery. That is, the use of FORCE to bully people onto boats and transport them, if the survive the journey, to a foreign land to be sold to like horses or mules. But what we never consider is that the so-called slaves might well have been content to swap uncertainty in Africa for certainty in America. Shelter, clothing, water and food, in return for work, might well have been acceptable to those people. That is, they did not need money. Who needs money if he has everything that he really needs to support life and his pleasures do not need money?

For example, I am enjoying typing this post. I can only type this post because I have time to do so, and I have time to do so only because I receive sustenance from my pensions.

So, in a sense, I am a slave, other than I do not actually have to work in the plantations to get the bare minimum to live on.

I seem to remember some trickery which I think existed in Australia. Convicts (people convicted of crimes and exported to Australia like slaves from Africa) were put to work. They would have been slaves, but, by then, slavery was ‘politically incorrect’. So what happened? The crims were put to work and paid a wage. Fine. BUT the employers ensured that there was only one shop where their ’employees’ could spend their wages. That shop was owned by the employers, and the prices could be determined by the employers. So the wages went back into the pockets of the employers via the shop.

We might not describe that system as ‘slavery’, but it might just as well be so.

In Roman times, 2000 years ago, slaves abounded. But we must understand that such slaves might have been quite happy with their lot. Who needs money if you are content with your lifestyle and you have food and shelter, etc, and are protected by your ‘master’? What is there not to like? But even in Roman times, it was recognised that there was a certain amount of ‘contract’ in slavery. There was a law which dictated that slaves must be offered freedom after X years. There is a recorded case where a Roman slave was offered freedom after he had served his time, but refused. He was happy with his work in the library and his lifestyle.


Somehow or other, the FACT that smokers and drinkers are being exploited must be revealed. The exploitation amounts to slavery.

I wish that I was young, single and very wealthy. I would mount a campaign against this slavery and exploitation. What is very weird is that people who have made their billion dollar fortunes on the back of FREEDOM, now use their billions to enslave people. But the slavery is not pecuniary – it is regulatory. Further, the regulations are cruel and vindictive. Further, the regulations originate from people paid simply to produce them, who pretend to CARE. The reality is that they do not give a shit.

Such people are the equivalent of Pol Pot, in a slow way. They are extremists. Such a person is Andrew Black, the Aussie exterminator, who controls the Health Dept. PM May shuffled the Cabinet and replaced many ministers, but she left Hunt in place. Why? Why? I can only think of one reason – better the devil that you know.

I suspect that Trump would have replaced such a Nazi sympathiser pronto. Why Nazi sympathiser? Because of his support for the exploitation of smokers. Don’t ban them – exploit them. And when you have drained them, exterminate them.

But will Trump grasp the nettle? Almost certainly not, since Smoking Bans are now universal. It does not matter that smokers are exploited and treated like slaves.

And yet…. The Soviet Union collapsed almost overnight.

Let’s face it. All we want is to be left alone to enjoy smoking, regardless of the consequences. But that simple demand also requires the end of punishment via taxes etc.

What we have to understand is that ‘duty’ taxes on tobacco, alcohol and petrol should have been done away with decades ago.

Why have politicians like Cameron, ex-prime minister, and all the rest of the ministers, not done away with such idiotic ideas?

And here is the weirdest thing. When in opposition, either the Tories or Labour, could have shouted about such things, but they did not.

Draw what conclusions you like.

And, once again, Happy Christmas.


7 Responses to “Happy Christmas to All the Exploited”

  1. Samuel Says:

    Several times over this year past you have mentioned tobacco prohibition in the US. There never was such a thing. For reference:


    Happy Christmas and thanks for the missives.

    • junican Says:

      Yes, Sam, I know that tobacco was not generally prohibited but 14 States did ban the sale of tobacco for some time. I did say ‘widespread’ prohibition and not ‘total’ prohibition!

  2. smokingscot Says:

    Best wishes to you, yours and all the folks who help add interest to this here blog.

  3. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    You know what Junican, if i win the lottery i will buy a pub. No money will change hands in my pub. All my guests will be smokers male and female. My own privately manufactured cigarettes and tobacco will be on the tables free. A wonderful atmosphere will prevail like we used to have in pubs. I very much hope you will be a regular visitor. ASH et al can go f..k themselves.
    Merry Christmas and thanks again for your wonderful blog !

  4. Ed Says:

    Merry Xmas Junican! 🙂

  5. Smoking Lamp Says:

    Merry Christmas Junican, may you enjoy a fine dinner followed by a good smoke!

  6. Smoking Lamp Says:

    Samuel, You need to go a bit more research. There in fact were several state bans that were effectively prohibition even if there was not a national ban…

    “Movies may depict the turn of the 20th century as a time of smoke-filled rooms, but in truth you couldn’t even pick up a pack of cigarettes in many states. By 1900, Washington, Iowa, Tennessee, and North Dakota had all banned the sale of cigarettes, and by 1920 11 other states had enacted similar bans.

    Some states were quick to ban cigarettes over concerns that customers might be getting more than they bargained for when they bought a pack. When a Tennessean challenged his state’s cigarette ban before the Supreme Court in 1900, the justices upheld the prohibition partially due to concern over adulterated smokes, writing, “[T]here are many whose tobacco has been mixed with opium or some other drug, and whose wrapper has been saturated in a solution of arsenic.”

    Did these bans put an end to American smoking? Not quite. Although buying cigarettes wasn’t legal in 15 states, the cigar business was booming. In 1901, four out of every five American men burned at least one stogie a day, and tobacconists sold 6 billion cigars a year. Like the prohibition of alcohol, these cigarette bans gradually fell out of favor, and after Kansas repealed its restrictions in 1927 cigarettes were once again legal in all states.”


    In addition, see: Lee J. Alston, Ruth Dupr􏰀e, andTomas Nonnenmacher, “Social reformers and regulation: the prohibition of cigarettes in the United States and Canada,”Explorations in Economic History 39 (2002) 425–445.

    Abstract: Anti-smoking legislation in North America reached its peak early in the last cen- tury. In 1903, the Canadian Parliament passed a resolution to prohibit the manufac- ture, importation, and sale of cigarettes. Fifteen states in the United States banned the sale of cigarettes and 37 states considered prohibitory legislation. In both the United States and Canada, prohibition was part of the Progressive Movement. Cig- arette prohibition was special interest regulation, but it was also the means by which crusaders sought to alter public behavior. In the United States, the cigarette lobby opposed cigarette prohibition while in Canada the French-Canadians offered the most vociferous opposition. An active Progressive Movement was the necessary condition for generating interest in prohibition, while the anti-prohibition forces played a significant role later in the legislative process.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: