The Epitome of Political Ineptitude

Just suppose, for a second, that the Black Death, the Bubonic Plague, which swept through Europe in the 1600s, could have been curtailed if not stopped completely. Suppose that a simple, widely available substance, which could be drunk, stopped the infection or cured it. You would think that ‘the authorities’ would have spread the word as rapidly as humanly possible at the time. We know that, despite the lack of telephones etc, word could be spread very rapidly via town criers and pulpits. The country was alerted to the Spanish invasion by bonfires.

The word can be spread these days in seconds.

The Australian Government decided that it was going to be the leader in the league table of reducing tobacco smoking prevalence. Or rather, the TC Tyrants decided so. The Oz Government played no real part in the decisions. TC Tyrant ‘academics’ were in control and Oz politicians fell dutifully behind them.

Just recently, Oz has twisted itself into knots. It really is incomprehensible.

UNSAFE, dangerous, carcinogenic, killers of bystanders, aka cigarettes, are applauded by ‘luxury’ taxation. SAFE, harmless, detoxified ecigs containing minute quantities of nicotine are vilified and banned. Substitution is discouraged.

If such ineptitude among politicians in OZ is NORMAL, how can those people be considered to be fit to rule? It makes no sense. But is it not becoming clearer and clearer that the PEOPLE are learning? Frankly, I think that it has taken far longer for the PEOPLE to learn than it should have. I think that is because the PEOPLE trusted the people that they elected as their representatives. How would they know that a person standing as Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, or whatever, was in fact a ‘tobacco control fanatic’?

So I can point readers to this critique of the Tyrant’s preliminary decision to continue the ban on nicotine containing ecig liquids:

http://www.taxpayers.org.au/ata_responds_to_tga_s_pro_cancer_ruling

It is all very comical, but it indicates a very important point, which is political ineptitude. Rather than listen to its own People, Oz is listening to International Tyrants in the WHO.

For how long can the Tyrants hold sway? I do not know, but I DO know that only our elected representatives can stop it.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “The Epitome of Political Ineptitude”

  1. Roberto Says:

    I don’t think that the regulating bureaucratic academicians (“tyrants of the WHO”) are forcing politicians to adopt this type of silly nanny policies. Rather, these academicians are minor players in a sort of multiple symbiosis of interests: politicians want to keep tobacco sin taxes flowing, the regulating bureaucrats want to keep their jobs and grants. Both want to keep money generously flowing from the pharmaceutics and the later want to eliminate competition to their NRT products. The pharmaceutics would love to own the e-cig and snus markets but selling them as medication. They aim to do so once they destroy the current markets by spreading misinformation and lobbying for over-regulation. The Big Tobacco industry is likely not part of this alliance, but benefits from it. Us, the smokers (and now the vapers and snus dippers), are the only suckers.

    E-cigs and snus are unforeseen obstacles (disruptive technologies) in this conjuncture of multiple interests that worked very smoothly, without opposition, for about 20 years (the 1990’s and up to about 2010). Of course, the pure crude financial and political vested interests are not sufficient: all the components of the anti-nicotine alliance are bound together, and communicate with the media and public, through their shared puritan eugenic paternalistic ideology.

    E-cigs and snus are in my opinion the first important crack in the body of this anti-nicotine monster, as they are supported by a minority of Public Health officials that cannot be simply dismissed. Current political changes put into question the credibility of the mainstream institutions and media. They may be the second crack, but I’m not optimistic, I doubt Trump has any motivation to challenge the “status-quo” on smoking and nicotine, while the latter issues seemed to have played no part in Brexit.

    • junican Says:

      Roberto.
      I am cynical. But not as much so as you. I think that ‘abolishment’ of tobacco is an aim of the UN ‘Agenda 21’. To understand that (which I am sure that you do), you have to think about the INTENTIONS of Agenda 21. It is to create a sustainable world.
      I that world, population would be stable, give or take a bit. Birth rates in poor countries would have to fall, and such rates in wealthy countries would need to increase. But only to the extent that there is a stable population.
      Arable land must be used to produce food, and nothing else. Thus, tobacco plantations must be destroyed. Further, grazing animals take up too much land. They too must be replaced by agriculture.
      Nothing but Agenda 21 matters, so lies and exaggerations do not matter.
      Whether Trump attacks TobCon or not is not important in the short term. What matters is that he takes back control from ‘experts’.

      Further, such ‘experts’ must be ‘called out’ and forced to explain how, say, sugar taxes on everybody will change the behaviour of fatties. But who are the fatties?

      It is hard, and that hardness is what TC is playing upon.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Australia and New Zealand are foremost in the world for their obnoxious bullying of smokers. This trend is now spreading to us and most be vehemently opposed.

    • Rose Says:

      The Australians have been here since the beginning.

      Smoke screen
      2003

      Less ash, more cash

      “Anita Lal one of the authors of the study, provided Hazards with its analysis of the five UK studies included in the research [see: The smoking gun, below].

      The three independent studies, with declared funding sources and no links to the tobacco industry, found no negative impact of existing UK smoking bans in pubs and restaurants. Pub owners reported that business had either increased or remained the same.”
      http://www.hazards.org/smoking/smokescreen.htm

      Not smoking bans at all, just non smoking sections.

      These “independent” studies were funded by anti-tobacco groups.

      Anita Lal, VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control. Australia.

      • junican Says:

        Exactly. For a little while, there appeared in my local a ‘non-smoking room’. It was almost always empty. There is no doubt in my mind that TobCon knew very well that no one wanted to be separated. And so they separated people from their friends.

      • Rose Says:

        It was the same in the two pubs I visited, the non smokers joined the smokers and left the non-smoking rooms empty.

      • Rose Says:

        That seems to have been Clive Bates idea.

        Letter to The Publican re. protecting employees from passive smoking
        7th June 1999

        Dear Editor

        Re: smoking in pubs

        It is true that the Health and Safety Executive is developing a new Approved Code of Practice to deal with passive smoking in the workplace (Pubs face new smoking bans, Code is a blow, 7th June 1999). All the ACOP will do is provide meaningful guidance on how the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) should be applied to tobacco smoke in the workplace. This law already exists and has no exemptions for the hospitality industry. The ACOP will clarify the law and help publicans comply with it.

        A new ACOP would not mean that all smoking must be banned in pubs. The heart of the law is that employers have an obligation to do what is reasonably practicableto reduce their employees’ exposure. That could include segregation,ventilation, banning smoking at the bar or other measures. It also means the ‘do nothing and ignore it’ approach is not an option. The best approach for any pub is to wholeheartedly embrace the Charter agreed by the Government and trade bodies such as ALMR and BII and to do what is reasonable and practical to protect their employees. That is good professional business, and it should not be a cause for alarm, despair or resistence.

        Yours sincerely,
        Clive Bates
        https://web.archive.org/web/20131228114052/http://www.ash.org.uk/media-room/press-releases/letter-to-the-publican-re-protecting-employees-from-passive-smoking

        But the non smokers refused to be segregated.

  3. Darryl Says:

    “Rather than listen to its own People, Oz is listening to International Tyrants……”

    True Junican and people are starting to wake up to this fact bit by bit. The major party vote is in decline here. MSM credibility is in freefall. What the future holds who knows. At the moment it’s like looking at the ocean, calm on top but underneath there are some strong currents on the move that will eventually break the surface. As Hunter S. Thompson said “buy the ticket, take the ride”. By being too trusting of politicians in the past we have all bought a ticket.

    • junican Says:

      I have to take it that you are from Oz, Darryl. There is something inherently weird about Oz. It is a HUGE continent. It MUST contain, beneath its surface, a volume of Energy of massive proportions. Suppose for a moment that the OZ Gov ENABLED exploitation of its resources?
      It is incredible that Oz is persecuting people whom it expects to produce wealth.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: