So the Government Has Published the Latest Tobacco Control Plan…..

Right. I have not read it myself but have seen critiques of it. I have no intention of reading it unless I have to. The generalised blathers make my blood boil. For example, blathers which say (words to the effect), “The poorest people smoke the most, so lots of taxpayers cash must be spent to ‘help’ (‘force’) them to stop spending their money on tobacco”. It never occurs to them to mention that the reason that the poor spend so much money of tobacco is because TOBACCO CONTROL ZEALOTS forced the price up to extortionate levels. My personal opinion is that smokers should feel no shame whatsoever about using the black market if they can access it. Extortion is a crime, and it is still a ‘crime’ even if the government approves it. It is still extortion. Extortion can never be lawful, no matter how it is dressed up. We are not ‘at war’ with the USA (tobacco), Portugal (port and sherry) or Saudi Arabia (oil).

I think that ‘the powers that be’ have seen that ordinary people are questioning why such products are so heavily taxed. Businesses must surely be shouting loudly (in private) about the cost of petrol. It makes the UK uncompetitive as compared with economies with negligible petrol taxes. So the ‘powers that be’ have changed tack – such taxes are justified for ‘environmental’ reasons, excessive tobacco taxes are justified for ‘health’ reasons, and alcohol taxes are justified for ‘health and economic’ reasons.

Do not underestimate the cleverness of the people who justify the funding of ASH ET AL AND THE FCTC  AND THE IPCC AND THE UN in general. They are very clever and understand that funding is the key. There are lots of ‘Arnotts’ in this world who prostitute themselves to make money on the backs of ‘innocents’. In the background are people who pull the strings. The ‘Arnotts’ of this world are not the puppet masters.

The ‘puppet masters’ are people like Blair. They really, really believe in ‘One World Government’. They really, really believe that the ‘One World Government’ will be run by kindly academics and kindly ex-PMs of minor countries, and that these kindly academics and ex-PMs will survive the onslaught of the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots and Maos of this world.

The good news is that the ensuing ‘One World’ civil war would exterminate half the human population.

===

I have read that the new ‘Tobacco Control policy’ is toothless. It is vague. But I do not understand how anyone could think that it matters with Brexit negotiations underway. Why on earth would May, as PM, approve such a thing? WHY BOTHER? It is said that only some 15% of the UK population smoke. So why bother? Why waste vast resources chasing after people who import a few forbidden lollipops? Why waste vast amounts of money on chasing after the mirage of ‘a smoke-free world’? Be in no doubt, as has always been our experience, that there is such a thing as ‘diminishing returns’. The Americans experienced that in Vietnam. Their bombers were useless against small groups of lightly armed guerrillas.

And that is how I see us smokers – lightly armed guerrillas. The word ‘guerrilla’ derives from the French word for war – ‘guerre’. The ‘illa’ means ‘small’. That is, no ships, no bombers, no missiles – just bows and arrows, spears and Kalashnikovs.

We do not use such weapons. In fact, we do not need weapons. We need deviousness. Deviousness is our weapon. I am sometimes quite astonished that so many people will continue to pat UK prices when a quick ‘city break’ holiday could stock them up for 12 months. It is worth paying for such a trip with a loan because the savings in costs are far, far greater than the interest payable on the loan. A couple of years ago, the price of cigs in Prague was £2.50 for 20. I brought back some 30 ‘sleeves’ – 30 x 10 x 20 = 6000 cigs. Total cost = £750. UK cost = more than £2000. What was the holiday cost (off-season in April – around £500) as compared with the savings?

I did not particularly like Prague. It still bears the scares of communist neglect. The weather was chilly and a bit damp. I only ventured into the city a couple of times. I was content to enjoy the ’boutique’ hotel where I was based and the pub over the road, and to read and to play chess on my electronic chess set, and to watch Eurosport on the TV. I had my evening meal there, since I was ‘bed and breakfast’ in the hotel. The ‘host’ treated me to several typical local meals, and they were immensely enjoyable. They may have been the equivalent of ‘Lancashire Hotpot’ for all I know, but they were delicious at the time.

It was a very quiet but relaxing break.

It is worth using a credit card, or a loan, to take such a trip. Just make sure that that you have a ‘document trail’ which shows that you can afford to take the trip. By ‘afford’, I mean have the means to do so, even it that means using a credit card or a loan. Only people who have no such ‘proof’ have their goods confiscated. Having the means to buy the stuff is of primary importance.

Not that I have ever been stopped. Not ever. Not once. There are no customs officers in the bag collection area. Not one. Only a ‘passport check’ exists. Can we imagine Brexit causing the reintroduction of tens of thousands of customs officers all over the UK? For what purpose?

The vast majority of ‘useful’ interactions will continue. Brexit will not affect them. I rode on my bicycle to Brussels in 1957. All I had to do was show my passport as I crossed boarders, and, even then, I was waved through with no formalities. There has NEVER been a bar against ‘free movement’ within Europe except in conditions of war.

To me, ‘Leaving the EU’ means exactly that, and nothing else. It means getting out of restrictions and directives. In very general terms, as far as we are concerned, the EU as such no longer exists. I mean NOW!!!! The vote was to leave the EU. There is nothing to negotiate about that.

The obvious approach is for Boris Johnson or David Davis, or both, to ‘call the shots’. When the People decided to leave the EU, then Article 50 became irrelevant. Article 50 requires asking permission to leave the EU. We are not asking permission.

Treaties have always been ‘permissions’. They have always been ‘positives’ even when the subjects have been  ‘prohibitions.’. When you say, “We agree that…”, everything that follows is ‘positive’, even though it is a prohibition.

So PM May, either directly or via her Health Minister, has deemed to capitulate to the new ‘Tobacco Control’ plan.

There seems to be a curious inversion of power going on. TC Zealots seem to be able to dictate to PM May what is the most important thing she should be concerned with.

Why did PM May permit, or even entertain for a moment, the blatantly biased demands of TC?

But, erm, why was the latest prohibition plan promoted as ‘very important’? Who said so?

I must to bed.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “So the Government Has Published the Latest Tobacco Control Plan…..”

  1. beobrigitte Says:

    The generalised blathers make my blood boil. For example, blathers which say (words to the effect), “The poorest people smoke the most, so lots of taxpayers cash must be spent to ‘help’ (‘force’) them to stop spending their money on tobacco”.
    I do not recall anything about poor people not supposed to be in control of what they spend their money on. In any case, isn’t it despicable tobacco control spread it’s tentacles into the government, demanding the extortionate tobacco tax?

    I have read that the new ‘Tobacco Control policy’ is toothless. It is vague. But I do not understand how anyone could think that it matters with Brexit negotiations underway. Why on earth would May, as PM, approve such a thing? WHY BOTHER? It is said that only some 15% of the UK population smoke.
    Good question. I can only guess that the tobacco&smoker haters feel close to their goal, even though, once achieved, would cull the anti-smokers’ justification for their (expensive) existence.
    I also guess, that far more than 15% of the population are smokers, and a further increase of that number would cull the anti-smokers’ justification for their (expensive) existence.

    Isn’t the government raising the pension age to 68 7 years prior to it’s plans? The BBC painted a picture of “oldies” enjoying travelling the world, playing bowls and all with no worries. The oldies I see either eat in winter, or heat their living room. And they live either isolated or in a “Hell’s heaven” nursing home.
    But they are still alive.

    Can we imagine Brexit causing the reintroduction of tens of thousands of customs officers all over the UK? For what purpose?
    To clamp down on the black market?

    Why did PM May permit, or even entertain for a moment, the blatantly biased demands of TC?

    But, erm, why was the latest prohibition plan promoted as ‘very important’? Who said so?
    Money talks…And TC has to justify it’s existence.

    • junican Says:

      Cogent comments, Beo.

      As regards ‘old age’, I suspect that when the ‘old age pension’ was introduced, the age of 65 was deliberately chosen. It would be the age when most contributors to the ‘national pension scheme’ would already be dead. Thus, there would be millions of contributors but few claimants.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: