Why Should We Let Tobacco Control and Politicians Depress Us?

Life is toddling along and you are reasonably content. Sure, problems rear their heads and, one way or another, you chop their heads off. But you rarely find that a problem is the result of someone actually deliberately persecuting you. If there was a person who was deliberately stealing your money and other goods, and deliberately obstructing you at every turn, year after year, you might well call the police. But what do you do when the person who is hitting on you is actually supported by the people who are supposed to protect you, and who exist by law to protect you?

The reason that Parliament came into existence was to protect The People against The King. Kings were tyrants, but not necessarily brutal tyrants. It has been said that the best form of Government is a benevolent dictatorship. That could be true, I suppose. What is the most important word in that statement? It is the word ‘benevolent’.

From what I have read, Henry VIII was a very benevolent King to begin with. He was a devout Christian and loved to discuss theology and stuff. But he gradually changed. It is hard to know why that was. As we know, he acquired a taste for chopping people’s heads off, especially his wives. I suppose that, as time passed, he became obsessed by the idea that everyone might be conspiring against him. So he suspected everyone and took ‘preventative’ action. Off with their heads! But they had to be tortured beforehand to get them to reveal their fellow conspirators. That was also normal in the Russian revolution, except that the torture was much more subtle.

I suppose that the subtlety of torture has now become so subtle that it can no longer be described as torture, even though it is. Lots of words need to be redefined because they give an impression that only violence and severe pain qualify in the descriptor. Thus, we always think of ‘persecution’ as being severe. We imagine, for example, that persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany was extermination camps, but we forget all the minor persecutions which preceded the extermination camps, of which the British and American and French Governments were perfectly aware – the wearing of the star; the desecration of synagogues; the smashing up of Jewish businesses; the theft of Jewish property.

You might reasonably ask why those Jews did not flee. Some did, like Einstein. He fled to Switzerland. But most stayed put in their homes and hoped that the persecution would go away. As we know, it became greater and greater until it became extermination.

Frank Davis has a great post today:


I would not actually describe Tobacco Control as intending to create concentration camps and extermination programmes, but they do not regard accidental deaths which indirectly result from smoking bans as at all significant. They just do not care at all. Such incidents, such as a balcony collapsing and several people falling to their deaths, are not deaths caused as a result of indoor smoking bans. They are the result of stupid smokers not quitting. Their deaths and injuries are their own fault.

It is those ideas, similar to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews before the extermination programme got underway, that can be correctly used to describe Tobacco Control to be EVIL, EVIL, EVIL. I do not repeat the word EVIL three times just for effect. The repetition describes the process of how the UN became nazified as epitomised by the FCTC; how that nazification was deliberately infiltrated into democratic government institutions; how finance ministers were persuaded that smokers (and drinkers) were suckers and could be taxed, taxed and taxed again. The basic idea was that such taxation was justified because smokers were addicts and stupid because they had allowed themselves to become addicts, and that anything that they might say would be irrational. It would be irrational because smokers, directly as a result of their decision to smoke, or continue to smoke, demonstrated their irrationality.

It is for these considerations that I believe that we should stop feeling sorry for ourselves. I believe that there is much fun in life to be gained from taunting Tobacco Control and ripping their ‘science’ apart. There is much fun in circumventing their persecution, if you can. And it is not that difficult. I had a young acquaintance in the pub a couple of years ago (ONLY a couple of years ago, despite the fact that I have not seen him for a couple of years) who told me that he likes to holiday in the Canaries, and ALWAYS brings back loads or cigs. He has never been stopped. Why? Because there are so many holidaymakers jetting around the world that to check every traveller would need a veritable army of hundreds of thousands of customs officers to work. But even if there was such an army, what would it gain? The answer is nothing. Thousands and thousands of suitcases would have to be opened and the contents examined, on the off-chance that a suitcase might contain, say, two cartons (2 x 200) of cigs rather than one. Or ten.Or twenty. Or thirty. Fines for exceeding the ‘allowance’ would have to be astronomical to pay for the costs of customs officers. And think of the delays!

But you come to a point where you dare not talk about things. That is one of the worst aspect of persecution. How can you get around that kind of persecution? It is not easy, but I shall try.

TobCon sneaked into a Finance Act a trick. The trick was to circumvent the fact that ‘raw’ tobacco is required by the EU to be freely traded. The trick was to require traders in ‘raw’ tobacco apply for a permit. The import of ‘raw’ tobacco became a ‘controlled’ activity. The stated reason for this imposition was that ‘there was a risk’ that people avoid tobacco product duty. Right. But where is the requirement for a permit to import grapes? Grapes can be used to make wine, and there is ‘a risk’ that people might evade duty by making their own wine. “Ah”, you might say, “but making your own wine is legitimate”. Well, no. That is not an answer. The reason is ‘that there is a risk of evading duty’. There is nothing to stop a person importing tons of grapes and making and selling wine without paying duty. Thus, the ‘crime’ is SELLING the home-made wine, and not making it. The ban (needing a permit) on the import of dried tobacco plant leaves is a trick. It is persecution. I denies a free person of the right to self sufficiency. It denies the right of a free person to experiment with blends. It denies the right of a free person to amuse himself in his own home. What seriously stinks about TobCon, and the politicians who fail in their duty to protect us against against tyranny, is the invasion of our privacy and freedom.

I wish that I was young and impoverished. I would take up arms against the persecution. But I am a frail old man, but not impoverished. I have a lot to lose if I put my head above the parapet. Younger people need to do so.

I fear that our nation has become enfeebled.

There was an article written By Cameron (the weak) in the Mail which I half read today. He claimed that foreign aid was wonderful because we ‘contributed to vaccination of millions of children and saved millions of deaths’. One could have accepted that statement – until he mentioned ‘global warming’. Only then you you realise that he was just an instrument of ‘Leading beyond authority’. A ‘Common Purpose’ graduate. Maybe that explains how he came from nowhere to leader of the Tory Party and PM.

Is Theresa May the English Trump (and I use the word ‘English’ deliberately)? With a bit of luck, the Scots, Welsh and Northern Ireland people might also benefit from ‘de-congestion’. By ‘de-congestion’ I mean allowing silly laws to fade away, even if they are still on the statute book. That word would also be useful to ‘de-congest’ multiple fake charities.

The political will is easy. It merely requires to understand which activities drain the public wellbeing and to eradicate those activities. It is not a difficult concept. Persecution of sections of the public ought to be anathema.

But, to return to my heading, there is much amusement to gain from being a ‘disgusting, filthy, stinking’ smoker. Do not become depressed because TobCon induces Politicians to bend over and take it. They do not matter.

I am constantly amazed that even light smokers are not prepared to venture abroad for a weekend to, say, Belgium. The ferry cost is around £50 for a return ticket with a cabin. You have to pay for your food. The cabin is very small and functional, but sufficient. The cafes are reasonably cheap. You can order your requirements from shops in Belgium before you go. It is well worth using a credit card, despite the interest charges, to ‘borrow’ the capital monies if you need to.

My ramblings above merely illustrate how weak TobCon is. It relies entirely upon TOBACCO DUTY to enforce its plan. Without such duties, it would have no force.

I must to bed. I am not sure if I have explained my thinking well enough. Essentially, it is that TobCom inspired regulations are becoming more and more silly. Witness the EU Ecig regs. No matter what words and phrases are used by the Zealots, the plain fact is that the regs are unutterably stupid, if a reduction in smoking tobacco is desirable. The only reasonable conclusion is that the Zealots do not want a reduction in smoking.

But, once again, I think that the attempt to criminalise 25% of the Adult People is bound to backfire eventually. It cannot be sustained.

Human ingenuity finds a way.

We need a Trump. We need a Trump to realise that vast swathes of Government are ‘out of date’ and useless. We tend to forget the horrendous flooding of the ‘Somerset Levels’ a few years ago, which were directly caused by Government negligence, due to vague wetland preservation edicts.

I hope that PM Theresa May and her Cabinet get around to thinking about fundamentals.

Perhaps ‘fundamentals’ is a subject for another post.

I am too tired to check for typos.


%d bloggers like this: