Believers in the Tobacco Epidemic

One of my favourite sites is:

http://theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/why-should-i-believe-left-are.html

The owner of the site is Simon Cooke, a Tory councillor in Bradford. He posts a lot, but rarely responds to comments, if ever. His voice is drowned in the Bradford council because the ‘leftists’ hold far more seats. But he tries his best to be rational.

I want to quote something from his latest post:

Yet the left remains astonishingly unaware of it’s problems or of the extent to which it is trapped. Here’s Nick Cohen presenting that unawareness as a considered position:

Compulsive liars shouldn’t frighten you. They can harm no one, if no one listens to them. Compulsive believers, on the other hand: they should terrify you. Believers are the liars’ enablers. Their votes give the demagogue his power. Their trust turns the charlatan into the president. Their credulity ensures that the propaganda of half-calculating and half-mad fanatics has the power to change the world.

How you see the believers determines how you fight them and seek to protect liberal society from its enemies.

I have only glanced at the Nick Cohen article, but why should I do otherwise? Who the hell is ‘Nick Cohen’?

But I empathised with the above sentences. What shocked me was the following text did not talk about the ‘compulsive believers’ but talked about the ‘liars’, and Trump was the arch liar. Not one word was said about the liar, ‘Clinton’, as far as I could see.

But it was hard to see why the article started with a ‘universal truth’, “Compulsive believers, on the other hand: they should terrify you.“, but went on to talk almost exclusively about ‘the lies’ of Trump.

What struck me about the Cohen statement was that it was not the lies which were important; it was the belief in the lies which was important.

It is hard to know when BELIEF in Tobacco Control lies took off. It was not the lies which were important, it was the BELIEF.

We all accept that the Earth is spinning. Why? It is not just that we have been told so by ‘Experts’. It is because that idea makes sense. It explains why the celestial bodies seem to all go in the same direction across the sky, and explains sunrise and sunset. No one with any intelligence would deny it. And yet, a few centuries ago, in an age of ‘enlightenment’, Galileo was placed under house arrest for saying just that.

For several decades, Tobacco Control have been saying that the Sun revolves around the Earth every day. The Sun is in orbit around the Earth. Tobacco causes lung cancer etc.

How was that proven to be true? It has NEVER been proven to be true, as the McTear Case (see sidebar) showed. That smoking tobacco causes LC is a BELIEF.

Imagine what would happen if smoking tobacco ceased to exist. There would still be people dying from LC, in which case some other ’cause’ would have to be found, and tobacco smoking as a cause would have to be relegated to ancient magic.

What seems to me to be important is that our elected representatives must NOT be committed to the usual parties. Those days are gone. Slogans are yesterday. A politician who votes for smoking bans and their extensions, votes for PERSECUTION.

Smokers have been persecuted for years and years, as have drinkers and drivers. What is all this shit about the EU fining the North of Ireland if people from the South venture into the North to buy cheaper cigs? Or, just a minute, is it the South which will be fined by Junker? I am getting a bit lost. Everything has become surreal. I am sure that Antony Gormley could paint a surreal picture of TC.

So, what is important, for us smokers, is to emphasise the PERSECUTION. The lies are not that important. It is the PERSECUTION that is important. In other words, whether smokers are killing themselves is not what matters. It is the PERSECUTION which matters.

That idea calls into question the whole idea of ‘Health Control’, in the sense that ‘health control’ can only be effected by FORCE. In fact, is it not true that Tobacco Control is all about FORCE? How on Earth did our Gov in the UK come to BELIEVE in the superstition of tobacco harm, and the need to use FORCE to satisfy the ‘Experts’, and hand them loads of money?

But Public Health England have loads of new projects in hand. They want to ban, or tax, EVERYTHING with the slightest HEALTH risk. Thus, football is a Health Risk, and should be taxed. The construction of any football, or anything which could be construed as being a football, attracts a tax, even if that ‘football’ is a balloon, since it could be ‘kicked about’ and cause injury.

What seems to me to be evident is that BELIEF begets PERSECUTION.

I do not know, and I doubt that it is knowable, why substances such as tobacco, alcohol, petrol, are picked out as being ‘special’. It is almost as if there was a reverse ‘racism’ and ‘hate crime’. It would possibly be comprehensible if the ‘special’ taxation was intended to ruin the economy of an enemy Nation, or a rebellious colony, but, in a civilised nation, there is no excuse. It can only be PERSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT.

 

 

Advertisements

8 Responses to “Believers in the Tobacco Epidemic”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    “PERSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT”

    Which is the entire idea behind current “Tobacco Control” in a perfect three word nutshell Junican! Basically Pavlovian negative conditioning — treating smokers like lab rats by making smoking unpleasant and undesirable through various forms of electric shock equivalents so that the “bad behavior” will be changed.

    Unfortunately for the Antis, if we’re rats…. we’re rats with TEETH! Small teeth maybe… but sharp.

    We just need to keep biting!

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      I wonder how many smokers have the intelligence of lab rats? No, that is wrong. They are TREATED as though they were lab rats. What has amazed me, over the years, is that Big Tobacco did not take the opportunity to insert into every cig packet, a message about TC. That is also true NOW about Ecig control.
      I just do not understand. Clever and tricky though TC and Big T might seem to be, the FACT is that BOTH of them are dinosaurs, blundering about and making very loud noises. It ought to be the little vaper shops which should be telling all their customers to OPPOSE, and who should be fighting like hell.
      And they should lay it on the line, and say that TC is only opposed to vaping because vaping has the potential (as has ‘heat not burn’) to vaporise TC.

  2. margo Says:

    Excellent post. Thanks.

  3. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    I think Public Health England and ASH should be abolished Junican. I am fed up being lectured by these people.

    • junican Says:

      I don’t want ASH to be abolished. I want it to be shown up as the charlatan that it is. I would like to see PHE devoted to ‘curing’ rather than ‘bullying’.

  4. Frank Davis Says:

    Re Nick Cohen:

    From Who, What, and Why by Roger Scruton.

    Nobody who writes or speaks in any way that seems to promote
    the interests of ‘Big Tobacco’ can escape vilification from such organisationsas ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), or from journalists like Nick Cohen of the Observer, who have so entirely
    accepted the case against tobacco as to look with amazement and
    contempt on anyone who appears to doubt it.

    • junican Says:

      I think that Roger Scruton should update his philosophical musings. He is a respected philosopher. He should, perhaps, contemplate the similarities between TC and Soviet Russia in the ‘Gulag Archipelago’ days.
      We need just a couple of millionaires to speak up and demolish the junk science. Is Kate Moss a millionaire? I note, Frank, that you emphasise Doll’s Hospital Study. It is my view that the Hospital Study was never intended to stand alone – it was too uncertain and vague. It was a precursor for the Doctors Study. It justified the Doctors Study. Nothing in Doll’s ‘experiment’ was not pre-planned in every detail.
      Both of those experiments commenced immediately after WW2. What possible worse circumstances could one imagine? How many of the hospitalised persons had suffered from the war, and how many doctors served in the war? What really nasty substances were they exposed to? Taking the immediate post-war years as typical makes no sense.
      So, “journalists like Nick Cohen of the Observer, who have so entirely accepted the case against tobacco as to look with amazement and contempt on anyone who appears to doubt it.” means that people like Cohen have not dug deep enough into the circumstance when the studies were performed.
      There is phrase ‘marginal propensity’. For example, a non-swimmer can venture into the sea up to his neck, but the slightest swell or wave might carry him away and drown him.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: