The Need to Defy the Language of Tobacco Control

There are words which we all thought that we understood to meaning of, roughly. The word ‘roughly’ is important. For example, the word ‘epidemic’ meant ‘widespread contagion of some disease’. That is, that a ‘disease’ spreads from person to person, or by some other means, and infects more and more people in an ever multiplying way. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc.

How then can ‘tobacco’, dried leaves, be described as an ‘epidemic’? It can only be so described if tobacco itself is a ‘disease’.

The chief distorters of our language are Zealots. But not the type of Zealot who caused Prohibition of alcohol in the USA around 19oo. At that time, the Zealots did not need to distort the meaning of words. They simply announced that alcohol was evil.

What seems to me to be happening immediately in the Trump era is that words are reverting to their original meanings. Thus, the word ‘immigrant’ describes a person who wishes to INVADE AND TAKE OVER another country.

Clearly, such ideas are not tenable in all cases, but might be so in some circumstances.

But what I see as very, very important is that we smokers, or anyone interested in ‘TRUTH’, must stop using Zealot language. There are no ‘nicotine addicts’, any more than there are ‘caffeine addicts’.

But, again, the recognised idea of ‘addiction’ had to be ‘redefined’ to exclude illnesses caused by withdrawal.

The terminology of ‘illnesses’ has been distorted exponentially to the extent that Governments DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORDS.

For example, the smoking ban in pubs and clubs was determine by the damage and danger likely to occur to bar staff. There was no reasonable evidence of such damage or danger. But Government misunderstood the meaning of the word ‘RISK’. Thus, our truly democratic Government has decided that ‘there is a ‘RISK’ that imports of the agricultural product, dried tobacco plant leaves, might be used to evade duty taxes.

None of those arguments matter at all. What is of THE GREATEST IMPORTANCE is the human right to be self-sufficient if possible.

These things become clear once you cut through the blathering words of TC.

Let us try to reverse the misleading use of words. There is no ‘epidemic’ or ‘pandemic’ of smoking. But there is ‘world-wide’ pleasure derived from the simple puffing on a cigarette





9 Responses to “The Need to Defy the Language of Tobacco Control”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Yes Junican enjoying a well made cigarette is a simple beautiful pleasure. I’m really enjoying a blend of Gawith Gold Turkish and their pure Izmir Turkish. For my taste it is sublime.

  2. Tony Says:

    Hi Junican,

    You say “The chief distorters of our language are Zealots. But not the type of Zealot who caused Prohibition of alcohol in the USA around 19oo. At that time, the Zealots did not need to distort the meaning of words. They simply announced that alcohol was evil.

    However I read that the prohibitionists of the late 18th and early 19th century devised what they called ‘Alcohol Science’. To give an example of how pervasive this was, all textbooks on anatomy were forced to devote at least a quarter of their pages to it.

    It was all ludicrous nonsense but the American people, and especially the children, were brainwashed with this for over 50 years prior to prohibition. It laid the groundwork well in advance and is eerily familiar.

    I think it was described in Chris Snowdon’s ‘The Art of Suppression’. I don’t have it in front of me but I can check later if anyone is interested.

  3. Tony Says:

    Oops, that should have read ‘late 19th and early 20th century’.

  4. mikef317 Says:

    Agree with you on the zealot’s use of language, but….

    Billy Sunday on alcohol (1913?). “Seventy-five per cent of our idiots come from intemperate parents, 80 per cent of the paupers, 82 per cent of the crime is committed by men under the influence of liquor, 90 per cent of the adult criminals are whiskey made.”

    The U. S. Prohibitionists were nuts for numbers. The link below is long and truly deranged.

    By the way, no matter what Donald Trump might think, the United States is a nation of immigrants – not invaders.

  5. Tony Says:

    Thanks for the Billy Sunday link. Yes, seriously deranged and more along the lines of the campaigners alluded to by Junican (sorry about the earlier typo – over enthusiastic predictive text).

    The pseudo – scientific approach was running in parallel. The Women’s Christian Temperance union set up what they called ‘Scientific Temperance Instruction’ according to Chris Snowdon.

  6. junican Says:

    Read the sermon, and thanks. Yes, a lot of figures were thrown around, and I had read somewhere (Snowdon?) about the education literature. But there was far more. I remember reading an American comic in the late 1940s/early 1950s which featured stories about the evil character ‘Nick O’Teen’ who tempted kids to smoke, until the hero came along and, literally, punched and kicked the evil Nick into oblivion. Lots of violence. Oh, and Nick had a hooked nose and chin, just like the nasty Jews a portrayed in Nazi literature.
    But essentially, even though the figures were tossed around, it was morality which figured most strongly in the hellfire and damnation sermons.
    At its base was eugenics, and, in many ways, religious eugenics. “Mens sana in corpore sana” (a healthy mind in a healthy body) was a religious call for abstinence.
    The religious aspect, directly, has disappeared, but the rest is still with us.

  7. junican Says:

    Oh, Mikef,
    Was not America invaded by Europeans in the first place? And was not the immigration at the invitation of the invaders? Was that not also true of Australia and New Zealand?
    But I must admit that Trump’s rhetoric goes too far sometimes. There was no need for the ‘rapist’ jibes. Whether building a wall is justified or not is not for me to decide. That is for the American people to decide.

    • mikef317 Says:

      I’d consider Cortez an invader because he pretty much destroyed the Aztec Empire. The early North American colonists? They were mostly looking for a better place to live, and there was plenty of land available. They did eventually drive Native American Indians out of their “territory,” and black slaves were “imported” in bondage, and even today, the malicious effects of these actions still reverberate through American society.

      I see your point about Australia and New Zealand. It was an age of colonization. I might mention the Portuguese in Brazil, and the English did a pretty good job of taking over India.

      My mind was on more recent times – the past two or three hundred years. The U. S. generally treats its immigrants shabbily, but in time, they (and especially their children) assimilate into the larger society.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: