I have in mind to change the name of this blog, but I do not really want to lose the connections which have built up. Loads and loads of Australians look up my article about the law on growing plants in OZ. They never comment, but they read the article. Essentially, the article says that transporting of tobacco plant seeds and seedling was banned in 1911. One can only guess why that was over 100 years ago. I guess that the Aristocrats who ruled OZ at the time had very lucrative tobacco plantations, so it was in their interests to limit the potential opposition. Oz has perfect weather conditions for growing tobacco plants and the right sort of ground in many places, especially for growing Virginia varieties. Between 1911 and now, the Tobacco Industry has abandoned OZ, therefore there is no longer any need to ban the growing of the plants as a protective measure for the industry.
So why does that Act still exist? I have read about people in Oz trying to get permission to grow the plants, but hitting a stone wall. They cannot get permits.
It seems that the same is true regarding the import of tobacco into the UK. We must remember that ‘tobacco’ is the cured leaf. It is not ‘tobacco products’. The EU regs say that tobacco can be freely traded, but the Zealots have somehow managed to stop that free trade by demanding that people who want to trade in tobacco must get a permit. But the powers that be will not issue permits! It is just the same as OZ.
In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that the requirement for permits was ALWAYS INTENDED to be a catch 22 situation. There is free trade in tobacco, but you need a permit to freely trade, which permits are not forthcoming, which means that there is no free trade.
Those sort of tricks are becoming more and more prevalent.
I have gone off the name ‘Bolton Smokers Club’. It is too localised. It was OK at the time. In fact, I sort of rushed to get that name because I thought that others would beat me to it. I really thought, at the time, that ‘Smokers Clubs’ would spring up all over the place. In some ways, that was true. Many ‘Smoky-Drinky’ places came into existence. I do not know if they are still going.
But it has become clear that smokers are fragmented. It is hard to blame them. How can you defend the idea that beating your wife is your right? For defending smoking is similar at this time. The idea that tobacco companies are murderers has been inculcated into the psyche of the population.
When I first set up the blog, I had in mind to go around town and hand out cards to smokers standing outside pubs. I was rather missionary in my thinking. Perhaps I should have, but events kept piling up and changing the scenario, so that nothing was the same from week to week. Magistrates were sending people to prison for failing to pay massive fines for daring NOT TO force smokers out of their pubs. It was an organised, massive assault upon publicans. It was organised. It had been thought through. No aberration was to be permitted. And magistrates were fully instructed in what they should decide. It was a blitzkrieg.
And that is what Tony Blair authorised, even if he did not know what he did. He authorised the blitzkrieg on smokers, including all the hatred, fear-mongering, taxation, bans, scientific fraud, etc. Had he OKed smoking bans in public buildings like libraries, no one would have bothered. I mean, smoking in libraries is like smoking in church. There is hush which does not lend itself to partying.
So I want to change the name of this blog. Other similar blogs have done so and retained the archive.
What do readers think? I think that, in the blogosphere, specific localities are deleterious to the message.
So I have in mind something along the lines of:
“Tobacco Benefits are REAL!”
What is comical about that phrase is that it includes the support of taxation of non-smokers. Non-smokers pay less tax than smokers.
So where do we go?
“Non-Smokers are not paying their fair share”. One could enlarge that by saying that non-drinkers and non-drivers are not paying their fair share.
There are economist blogs – loads of them. But I have yet to see one which emphasises the unfairness of the lack of taxes on non-driving teetotal non-smokers. Those people should pay their fair share.
The only answer is income tax and simple VAT. Duties are unfair and discriminatory.
What do people think?