Personal Rights and the State

The State is grabbing more and more CONTROL over us. If The State can pass a law saying that you cannot smoke on a beach, in the open air with a sea breeze blowing, then The State has deviated from its purpose.

We should not be afraid of comparing Tobacco CONTROL with Nazi Germany or  Communist Russia. The operative word is CONTROL.

Why were publicans threatened with massive fines and possible withdrawal of their licences if they did not FORCE smokers to comply with the ban? I shall tell you: it was because they, and even their associations, did not know their Personal Rights. They should have fought like hell to refute the idea that they were criminally responsible for what other people do on/in their premises. In other words, if someone pulls out a knife and skewers another person, the publican could be held responsible because he did not have every punter searched.

We hear a lot about ‘private property rights’, but that is not the important thing. The important thing is Personal Rights. I own my house and can dictate what is allowed to be done within it. But that does not mean that I am responsible for what people who happen to be within my house do. Perhaps I should festoon the walls of my house with posters saying, “Murder is not permitted”. But, if, in my house, someone at a party pulled a knife and stabbed some other person, the posters would be irrelevant. Shit happens.

Individuals do not have to risk their lives to intervene in dangerous situations. It would be ridiculous for laws to require that. And yet the smoking ban requires just that. Publicans must actually apply physical force to stop a person from lighting a cig. They should have fought, and fought again, before, during and after those demands upon them from The State were made. Magistrates upheld the power of The State.

Those magistrates were wrong. The State does not have the power, in a free society, to determine the actions individuals.

But there is always a ‘nigger in the woodpile’. And that is toxicity. It is reasonable for The State to require that citizens should be protected from chemical which are too toxic. We understand that and applaud such ‘controls’. But when you consider SHS as a toxin, then you cannot but ask, “HOW TOXIC?”

The TC bible, Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’, says that you can smoke between the ages of 20 and 50 without any ill-effects appearing. After that, the heavier that you smoke, and the longer that you smoke, produces more and more health problems, notably the 15 fold increase in the risk of LC.

That is an enormous increase in risk. As a statistic, I do not belittle it. Even so, most of the doctors in the study were smokers, so, statistically, the non-smokers were not ‘typical’ of doctors as a whole. And, only 7% of the doctors died from LC, despite most of them being smokers at the beginning of of the study.

But how do you go from a study which shows a major increase in risk for SOME people to a BAN ‘for the use of’ without a BAN for the toxin itself?

When the anti-Christ, Blair, permitted, as PM, the obligatory persecution of publicans, publicans should have risen up as a mass and gone on strike. They should have closed their doors. The shit would really have hit the fan had they done so. I doubt that the ban would have lasted for a week.

Is it still possible for them to do so? Clearly, it is. But it will not happen. It will not happen because pubs et al have no courage. They cannot have ‘courage’ because they are ‘things’. Publicans would have to have an Association with the balls to defend its members, and the members would have to have the balls to ‘go on strike’.

Defying the law is a perilous thing for ordinary citizens to do. But there is a difference between indoors and outdoors. The proprietors of indoor places are required to police the ban. Who is going to police outdoor bans?

The sadness is that none of the persecution was necessary at all. For whatever reason, lots of people have decided that they do not want to enjoy tobacco and wish to enjoy something else.

The mere fact that the WHO has singled out tobacco as its ‘best bet’ to get control, shows that it is corrupt beyond imagining. Trump. on his own, cannot combat TC, but he could massively undermine the CONTROL aspect. Americans WILL NOT be controlled by the corrupt UN.

The UN is utterly corrupt. It serves no purpose other than to enrich its participants.

The UN is part of ‘The State’ and vice versa. It is to be hoped that, as with Trump, Theresa May is not a ‘Common Purpose’ graduate, as Cameron was.

“Leading beyond authority” is the slogan of ‘Common Purpose’. But who decides ‘the purpose’ and who ‘leads’?

What we have to understand is that we are all STUPID. All of us. We have studied the heavens for centuries and are no nearer an understanding of the Universe as were the shepherds who first noticed that there were ‘planets’, which were ‘stars’ which ‘wondered about’. They were the planets. They ‘wondered about’ because our observations of their positions depends upon our own position in the solar system. That does not apply to far away stars.

Enough. I have, as usual, drifted. It seems to me that ‘Personal Rights’ no longer exist. Only ‘Corporate Rights’ matter.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Personal Rights and the State”

  1. elenamitchell Says:

    It knocked the heart out of a pint at the pub. Not that I have ever drunk pints, but then I don’t go to the pub anymore. The whole point was a fag and a chat while having a drink, but I can still do that at home, and for considerably less cost.

    • junican Says:

      I went to the pub tonight. I think that there were ten of us in there. Lots of people cannot be bothered turning out, and why should they be bothered? There is not much fun to be had. I like to have a couple of pints because I enjoy the taste of the beer and like to have a change from home. I enjoy it but am not enthusiastic about it.

  2. Some French bloke Says:

    After that, the heavier that you smoke, and the longer that you smoke, produces more and more health problems, notably the 15 fold increase in the risk of LC.

    If one cares to remember that the rural/urban divide in lung cancer risk has been conveniently wiped out of the overall picture, as were occupational hazards in the London Hospitals Study and possibly also in the Doctors’ Study (if one considers that some docs, including specialists, are more exposed than others to infections and the like), then those health problems would only appear to be produced by heavy smoking. The difference between smoking rates in rural vs urban areas is sizeable but not huge (probably not in excess of 30%), while the corresponding difference between LC risks is not only sizeable but huge. As you say the non-smokers were not ‘typical’ of doctors as a whole: the non-smokers and light smokers among them were more likely to practise in less urbanized areas, while most heavy-smoking docs practised where the population density is higher.
    So careless or biased researchers could respectively fall into that trap, or use it to fool the general public (and apparently most of the so-called scientific community).

    • junican Says:

      The rural/town divide was first observed by Kitty Little in South Africa (I think) many years ago. It has been more recently observed in Northern Ireland. I dare say that it has been observed in many other places also. The burying of such studies is another ‘proof’ of the dishonesty of TC.
      There are all sorts of things wrong with the Hospital Study and the Doctors Study as Fisher pointed out. As you say, smoking is only one of many factors involved.

      • Some French bloke Says:

        As you say, smoking is only one of many factors involved.

        Perish the thought! From what I’ve been gathering these past six years on the subject of smoking as the putative cause of all manners of dreadful diseases and conditions, the former *not* being a factor at all in *any* of the latter is a distinct possibility…

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: