The Harm Inflicted by Dictatorial ‘Officials’

The Surgeon General of the USA opined that ‘there is no safe level of Environmental Tobacco Smoke’.

Arnott recently said that tobacco smoke disperses in the outdoor air and is thus more dangerous.

Can you see the connection between those two statements?

What Arnott was saying was that tobacco smoke spreads in all directions outdoors so that more people breath it. Crazy though it might seem, if that were the case, it would be better if smoking was confined to the indoors so as to prevent the outward spread all over the world.

Which is true? Is it better to confine smokers indoors to avoid the spread, or drive them outdoors so as not to infect those people who are indoors?

It may be true that tobacco smoke might irritate existing conditions such as asthma. Asthmatics should therefore avoid tobacco smoke. They are the unusual ones, and it is up to them to remove themselves from danger.

I remember entering my favourite bar in Magalluf. I lit a cig at the bar. A woman sitting at the bar near where I was asked me not to smoke because she had asthma. I looked at the barman, who just happened to be the owner, and he looked at me. Did she suffer from asthma or was she just exercising POWER?

Lots of people get a kick out of just exercising POWER. Any excuse will do. “Excuse me, but smoking is not permitted here” is just the same as, “Excuse me, but you must go to the end of the queue”. Do you see the difference though? The second case is justified, but the first case is not. NOT going to the end of the queue impinges directly upon those who are queuing, whereas smoking in a place with a theoretical ban does NOT directly impinge upon others – unless the complainants are really, really terrified, or just want to exercise POWER.

Remember the video of some big, strong guy in Oz verbally attacking a slightly build woman who was smoking in the street? Would he have done so if the person involved was a sixteen stone rugby prop forward?

The smoking ban only exists because those who enacted it did not have to personally enforce it. They can walk away. That also applies to academics who recommend prohibitions and massive taxes – they can walk away. In fact, the worse they are at recommending stupid laws, the more they become ‘world-renowned emeritus professors’.

Ex-PM, Blair, is trying to influence Brexit. He wants ‘His Elite confederates’ to scupper Brexit. Who the f*ck is he to pronounce? He is ‘EX’. Who cares what he thinks?

There is this weird thing that there are people who will pay $1000 dollars to attend a dinner where Blair is the main speaker. Blair gets $10, 000 dollars for speaking.  And what does he say? Bugger all.

It is not people like Blair who are the problem. They are individuals who personify ‘The Elite’. The real problem is the whole Elite.

The ‘Global Elite’ must be busted. It is a dictator. The FCTC, along with the IPCC (global warming) show that to be true. Lots of Global Organisations must be busted because they are dictatorial. I do not mean simply undemocratic. I mean far worse than that. I mean the imposition of conformity to the mediocre.

‘Officialdom’ demands ‘uniformity’. Everything and everyone is the same.

It has never worked and will not work. Human beings are curious and investigate this and that. They cannot be suppressed. But, somehow or other, the ‘suppressors’ must be replaced by ‘enablers’.