The ‘Danger’ of the Nanny State

Few people talk about how dangerous the nanny state is. You might like to look at VGIF’s  contribution here:

It is a very short discussion about the idea of ‘plain packaging’ of hamburgers. That is, the idea of plastering hamburger packets with medical porn to stop people who have bought that product from buying it. Perhaps the intention is to persuade them to take the product back and demand a refund. There were four panellists. Three pretended to welcome such packaging and one other pretended to hate it. (I believe that all these ‘discussions’ are pre-planned) The three panellists who were in favour of medical porn actually expressed belief that the hamburger was dangerous because of the medical porn on the packaging. And those three persons were adults.

It is almost beyond belief that persons who appear on a TV discussion programme are so gullible. Frankly, it really IS beyond belief. The programme was staged.

A hamburger is a perfectly healthy piece of food. When I go on one of my trips to Magalluf, I often have a hamburger for my lunch. I like it with onion and a side salad of lettuce and a few crisps. It is delicious around 3 pm, half way between breakfast and dinner. But I do not eat ten of them.

It is eating ten of them which causes obesity.

And that is where the nanny state is a massive failure. It MUST assume that some people eat ten hamburgers at a sitting. Only if that is true can the nanny state condemn hamburgers as such. The idiocy goes further and further when you extend that idea to cereals. How many helpings of of porridge will make you fat, even if you eat nothing else?

Dick Puddlecote has been saying for ages that ‘Tobacco Control’ has nothing to do with Health, and he is right. Nor has ‘Hamburger Control’. It is not the word ‘Tobacco’ or ‘Hamburger’ which is important. The important word is ‘Control’.

People who are ‘in control’ do not have to make profits from their work. They leach upon those who do the work and make the profits. I do not mean those people who are CEOs of companies. I mean those people who are totally outside such businesses but use them for their own ends.

The danger of the Nanny State, as we have seen over the past several decades, and particularly since 2007, when the smoking ban was enforced with enormous vigour and force, is that there is no limit. Politicians should have spotted that ‘infinitude’ before 2007.

It is time that ‘important’ people started to examine ‘Public Health England’. I is becoming, or has become, an instrument of of persecution and torture. Torture does not have to be physical, although ‘sin taxes’ are torture for the least well-off. Torture can be mental. It is especially torturous when patients in medical institutions are deprived of their succours, such as the enjoyment and relief that they derive from smoking.

Why are there not dozens of politicians fighting like like hell to give mental patients succour? Why has Tobacco Control been allowed to persecute such vulnerable people?

And why has Tobacco Control been allowed to persecute prisoners? Maybe prisoners should be whipped daily to to persuade them to mend their ways once they are released, but stopping them enjoying tobacco will only encourage them to regard ‘authority’ with even more disdain.

I believe that TC is digging its own grave. It has happened again and again. The alcohol prohibitionists in the USA got alcohol banned, but the result was mayhem.  The same is happening even now as regards smoking. I was talking to my nephew last night at a family do (30th birthday of a daughter – not mine). He showed me his home-made cigs in a special cig case. The cigs were very slim. So people like him are taking their own steps to reduce their MASSIVE exposure to MASSIVE punitive, usurious, punishing, prohibitionist taxes. THERE IS NO OTHER REASON FOR SUCH TAXES, OTHER THAN OPPORTUNISTIC MONEY GRABS BY THE LIKES OF OSBORNE.

It has nothing to do with Health.


4 Responses to “The ‘Danger’ of the Nanny State”

  1. Rose Says:

    I think that here today gone tomorrow politicians are terrified of Public Health and let them ride roughshod over the very people they are ment to represent.
    Public Health and their minons and hangers-on are very loud and can ruin a career, look how Cameron caved in over Plain Packaging to prove that he wasn’t in thrall to Lynton Crosby who had had dealings with tobacco companies in the past.

    Look how Labour politicians meekly voted for a total smoking ban at the behest of the Unions that fund them, despite it not being in the manifesto.

    “We created a coalition around our key messages. A smoke-free steering group was set up involving major health and medical organisations in alliance with the Trades Union Congress, individual politicians, local government officers and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. They ran their own effective campaigns, but remained committed to an agreed strategy originally drafted by Ash.”

    It was the same with Prohibition, any politician who didn’t wholeheartedly embrace the “dry” cause was branded as being in league with Big Alcohol.

    “Their initial objective was a law in every state banning its manufacture and sale. Their tactics were focused. A politician who supported anti-liquor laws could count on the league’s support, and a politician who did not could count on its ferocious opposition. “The Anti-Saloon League,” Russell said, “is formed for the purpose of administering political retribution.”

    “Wheeler and the ASL sponsored more than 300 anti-Herrick rallies throughout the state and mobilized their supporters in the churches by suggesting that the governor—“the champion of the murder mills”—was a pawn of the liquor interests.”

    Studying Prohibition is very useful in seeing how it started and how it ended.
    6 years after the man who got such a stranglehold on the legislature died Prohibition was gone.

    • junican Says:

      All very true, Rose. TC is only a variation on Prohibition. It is Prohibition by stealth. I wonder is ASH ET AL are seething that their plans are being upset by other lobby groups using their template? The more that that template is used, the more people that will be offended and complain.

  2. Michael J McFadden Says:

    Actually, there IS a possible “flip side” to this presentation if it was deliberately set up that way. Most people would NOT be in favor of covering every item in the supermarket with warnings and gore, and by emphasizing the possible future power of the pro-gore folks they may help the average person wake up to how outrageous the “plain packaging” for cigarettes is.

    • junican Says:

      I have been thinking much the same myself for some time. They have to be allowed to go too far. In the USA, ‘public opinion’ regarding Prohibition began to change slowly as the problems began to mount up. Mayhem on the streets caused by competing gangs, way, way outside the law, with shootings and beating, does not have to be widespread. Such mayhem in one part of one city, widely reported, has every citizen concerned. Add to that widespread corruption in the police, and you have a recipe for a furore to break out among voters. That is when politicians suddenly change their minds.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: