Why I Detest Tobacco Control

Note that I do not use the word ‘hate’. For some reason, it seems not to be in my nature to ‘hate’. I do not think that I have ever used the phrase, “I hate you!”, or even ever thought that thought.

‘Detest’ is a very nice word. As I see it, it implies ‘contempt’ for the subject of the detestation. It implies a ‘shitty smell’. And that is how I see the personnel in TC. The likes of Arnott and Duffy have a shitty smell. Everything they say is shitty. Even the dulcet tone of voice which they use is shitty.

So why do I feel that way?

You can understand, in a war situation, why Governments and Rulers make it a prime objective to use propaganda to demonise the enemy. I suppose that the German people were ‘taught’ to see Brits and French people as oppressors of innocent Germans; that WW1 was only lost because of American Jews; that WW2 was a righting or wrongs inflicted upon the German people by those who would hem the German people in and subjugate them. Likewise, Brits and French people were taught that ALL Germans were cruel and vicious.

It is that use of propaganda to demonise smokers which earns my contempt. “When I get home from the pub, I have to wash my hair and my clothes because of the stink of tobacco”. In other words, smokers cause me to stink. The fact that probably absolutely no one actually DOES wash their hair and clothes after a night out at the pub is lost in the propaganda. No one with any sense would actually believe it, but the ‘stink’ of manipulation lingers. Non-smokers, who never really noticed the tobacco smell, or even enjoyed it, start to worry. Do you see what was happening? The accusations were not only intended to shame smokers, but also to rally non-smokers against their friends who smoked.

It worked, just as Nazi and British propaganda worked.

There was an episode in the TV programme “Dad’s Army” which touched on the problem. (For foreign readers, and the younger element, “Dad’s Army” was a comedy about the Home Guard – volunteer defenders of the realm who were not fit to serve in the army, but would take on the Germans if they invaded). In that episode, an old chap well known to the volunteers, had been a conscientious objector in WW1. Everyone called him a coward until Frazier said, “But he was awarded the Military Cross” (or some such award). Everyone’s mouth fell open. “Yes”, said Frazier, “He would not fight, but he was in the medical corp and tended the wounded under fire. He was awarded the Cross for bravery”. Something of a contradiction, do you not think? A very brave coward?

And that is why I detest Tobacco Control people. They are cowards. It is always someone else who suffers – the old pensioner who used to be able to enjoy a pipe and a pint in the ‘smoking room’ (before pubs knocked all the interior walls down) – but NEVER directly at the hands of the cowards. They us other people to inflict the pain.

I detest them, and I do not understand why it is that politicians do not also detest them. Perhaps it is because they themselves are also cowards. What is clear beyond doubt is that politicians have forgotten their primary purpose. It is to protect ‘The People’ against Government.

Are the intelligent MPs equally rendered soporific by propaganda? It seems so to me. Propaganda operates at the level of emotions and not conscious thought. It gets into your motivations, whether you like it or not. When I am walking along the street smoking, if someone appears walking along the same street, I sort of cringe a little because I am smoking. It is a terrible thing to admit, but it is so. I cannot help it. The Zealots have invaded my soul.

You might ask what I mean by ‘soul’. I suppose that I mean it in the religious sense, even though the first philosophers who described the idea of ‘the soul’ were not religious in the modern sense. Your ‘soul’ is that which makes you, you. It is because of your ‘soul’ that you are not just a clone. If I may say so, dogs and cats have personalities, but they do not have souls. They are clones, albeit superior clones.

But, that invasion is very superficial. It could disappear in the blink of an eye. It has been constructed, but is an edifice built upon sand. The slightest shift of the sand could bring the whole edifice tumbling down. The Zealots know this, which is why they have to continuously increase the hype.

It would be lovely if Theresa May was able to recognise that Brexit was born out of frustration. I voted ‘out’ knowing perfectly well that Tobacco Control would probably take the opportunity to stop smokers from importing tobacco products. It was tempting to vote ‘remain’ to maintain the status quo. But NO! The EU was a convenient excuse for introducing nasty laws by the back door. “Not my fault, Guv”. The ecig fiasco is a case in point.

I think that I have reasonably proven my case. ASH ET AL are detestable. Perhaps we should admire people who are prepared to march on Parliament, no matter how much we decry their purpose. Perhaps we should give their motives more consideration precisely because they put themselves out. They show some courage.

I detest ASH ET AL. I pity politicians. I see politicians in the light of ‘They do not know what they do’. All the more reason to completely crush the EU. It is an absurd organisation. Tell you what. It only became possible because of NATO. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) protected Europe West of Russia from Communism. I do not mean invasion, but rather the ideology. Weird, is it not?, that a military alliance can protect against an ideology?

Tobacco Control snuck in under the radar, via the UN and the WHO. I watched a video this evening via:

https://peterrisdon.com/blog/2016/12/09/trumps-foreign-policy-genius/

(H/T cannot remember)

General Mattis talks about strategy. In effect, he says that it is unwise to enter into combat without an ‘end point’. He says that the ‘end point’ depends upon Strategy. That is, for example, that the USA should not have gone into Afghanistan without a STRATEGY which produced an ‘end point’. From a layman’s point of view, that means ‘Stop blundering about’. I can understand what he means. For example, the USA went into Iraq to remove Hussein and they succeeded with much loss of life. But what ensued? Chaos ensued. The big mistake that the USA made was to sack any worker who was from Hussein’s tribe. They did not realise that those people were not Nazis. Most of them were just simple administrators like our Civil Service. By sacking them all, the USA created resentment in vast quantities. In fact, Gen Mattis mentions ‘resentment’ as a critical factor in STRATEGY.

But he also mentioned ‘The Enlightenment’ which was the origin of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. Essentially, that means that Government must be secular, and not beholden to any religion. In the secular field, right and wrong do not depend upon sin, but depend upon harm to others. You, as a person, can do what you want to do, provided that you do not harm others.

That is the way that Government should proceed and act. But Government has been distracted from that basic principle over the decades. It banned cannabis etc. Enjoying cannabis is a personal thing. It does not harm others in itself. There will always be people who over-indulge, but that is no reason to ban everyone from amusing themselves.

What it comes down to, and this is what ASH ET AL promote, is that Mill’s definition of freedom (do not harm others), does not apply to tobacco. Smoking harms others. That idea is central to ASH’s power. Without it, ASH would have no power. But they are cowards anyway.

I am quite observant. I notice that it is not the older end of the people who go to the pub who are smokers. They are not – almost 100% not. It is the younger end. The 20% of smokers are not old farts. I also observed that in Magalluf, it is the yoof who smoke, and not those who expect the yoof to entertain them. The non-smokers sit passively expecting to be entertained.

FUCK ‘UM!  The absolute fact is that it is the yoof which smokes. Any diminishing in smoking prevalence is among old farts – those who are doomed anyway by past smoking.

I detest TC because the likes of Glantz in the USA and Chapman in OZ, are cowards who would not actually put themselves out to take up arms and fight. They use other people to use force to make people they dislike miserable.

I detest them.

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Why I Detest Tobacco Control”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Yes Junican. These arseholes have completely ruined my social life and wrecked my monthly budget. They haven’t stopped yet either.

    • junican Says:

      That’s the problem with Government funding the likes of ASH – ASH has to keep coming up with new tortures. If they had had to rely upon public donations, they would have faded away decades ago.

  2. smokingscot Says:

    Agreed, to hate them is really not possible after 11.75 years (Scotland); it’s too much effort and most likely’ll shorten a life.

    Detest isn’t really that different. Google says detest is:

    dislike intensely.
    “she really did detest his mockery”
    synonyms: abhor, hate, loathe, despise, abominate, execrate, regard with disgust, feel disgust for, feel repugnance towards, feel distaste for, shrink from, recoil from, shudder at, be unable to bear, be unable to abide, feel hostility to, feel aversion to, feel animosity to, find intolerable, dislike, disdain, have an aversion to; archaic disrelish
    “I do detest social climbers”

    So it’s still an active thing – and ultimately that’s terribly bad for you personally.

    Yes I know you use this here blog to vent your ire, same as myself in that respect and I sort of revile the f…wits as well.

    Revile’s what I think you and the rest of the crew of bloggers do. Google defines that as:

    criticize in an abusive or angrily insulting manner.
    “he was now reviled by the party that he had helped to lead”
    synonyms: criticize, censure, condemn, attack, inveigh against, rail against, lambaste, flay, savage, brand, stigmatize, denounce;

    I realise this is pure semantics, however I like to think I calmly appraise them, take avoiding action where necessary from a personal standpoint – and lay into them… forcefully and with conviction.

    Nevertheless I have to admit that I am very impressed with the individuals at the forefront of tobacco control worldwide. Without exception they are singularly nondescript and in their previous occupations were spectacular underachievers. Yet under the protection offered by FCTC they have thrived with exceedingly hygienic jobs, wonderfully inflated salaries, pension schemes that put even the best in the public service to shame (and way lots better than any comparably qualified individual in the NHS will ever get) – and they all have staff whom they control.

    On the other hand, ASH England claims a 25% staff turnover each year, so they’re not as good as they paint themselves to be. In fact their people management skills suck. And to a person they’re what are described as “takers” (in it for all they can get and sod the consequences).

    Personally (and this is simply a subjective view from afar) I don’t think they much like themselves at all. Low self esteem, almost certainly based on the niggling fact they’re a sham, peddling utter garbage for no good or just reason other than to line their own pockets.

    And I note that people like Glantz, despite being 71 years old this year will not give up his post. John F. Banzhaf was born in 1940 – and again he refuses to quit. I have no idea the age of Andrew Black, but he’s been there since Rover made the Metro. They’re fearful of retirement, very possibly because without their butt wipers’ and perks they’re nothing. Just very, very nasty – and lonely – old men, without a life, just a lucrative career.

    Fortunately I am a firm believer in “divine justice” that has nothing whatsoever to do with any religion.

    Nope Junican, I’ll stick to how I describe my place:

    “Opposition, criticism, rejection of the smoking ban.”

    And dare I say it? You’re not a world away from that yourself.

    • junican Says:

      I agree that there is not much difference between ‘detest’ and ‘hate’, but there is a subtle difference. Hate is more aggressive than detest. Well, I think so, anyway. I am more likely to want to harm someone that I hate than I am if I detest them.

      I remember reading some time ago that ASH have a staff turnover problem, but I did not know that it still existed. I cannot imagine what it might be like to just want a job in an office, and find yourself working in an atmosphere of hate (!), condemnation and peddling lies.

      I also think that there is a lot in what you say about low self-esteem. Anyone who earns a living (such as politicians) by constantly and knowingly distorting facts to suit an agenda cannot really think much good of themselves. But, there again, they are experts at ‘projection’ – you would prefer not to have to exaggerate and lie, but how else can you persuade these addicted scumbags (smokers) to give up smoking?

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: