Does the Government Control Tobacco Control, or Is It Vice Versa?

I wondered yesterday why THE CABINET (and not just the Health Sec) thought that there was any point in publishing a new TC policy. Yesterday, I also described the ‘policy’ as a ‘plan’. That was a mistake on my part. There is a vast difference between a ‘policy’ and a ‘plan’. Perhaps that is why the lack of detailed ‘plans’ is not important.

So what is the ‘policy’? Again, I must stress that I have not read the document – yet. Perhaps I shall have to force myself to do so.

It is becoming vaguely apparent to me that ‘plans’ follow on from ‘policy’ AFTER the policy has been published. That is why TC et al were screaming for the policy to be published.

So what was the importance of publication?

The answer lies in the fact that the UK signed up to the FCTC Treaty.

The Treaty itself did not give instructions to Nations. It made suggestions. There was no demand in the Treaty that Nations should do this or that. Thus, we see the importance of declaring a policy. Once such a policy has been declared, then the suggestions of the FCTC become demands. They become imperatives. 

So I am seeing, once again, ignorance in Government Ministers. We should always remember Minister Milton saying in the House, “We have to do it because the Treaty says so”. So, by agreeing to publish the policy, the Government has committed itself to whatever TC wants it to do. This process has been going on for years and years, and no one sees it.

Brexit is about ‘taking back sovereignty’, aka ‘make Great Britain great again’. It is not just about the negative of restricting immigration. But why are things like the FCTC Treaty not included? One of the impositions of that Treaty was that Nations would contribute funds for its implementation dependent upon their economic wealth. Is it any surprise that the USA never ratified the Treaty? It contributes NOTHING to the FCTC. The UK is on of the biggest contributors, along with Japan.

What is wrong with our politicians? Why are they so ignorant?

There are direct links between the UN as a whole, the WHO, the FCTC, the EU, the UK Health Dept anti-smoker Zealots. They bypass Elected Governments via International Treaties. Thus, they can override Elected Representatives. They can infiltrate the World Bank and any other ‘supranational’ organisation and dictate ‘policy’.

Only President Trump has dared to defy the demands. Why is that? How do these invisible people get the power to give instructions to the President of the USA? I read somewhere that Trump might be back-pedalling on his withdrawal from the Climate Accord. If he has been put under pressure, serves him right! He should have followed up with dismissing the UN from the USA asap. Give them notice. Take your headquarters to Somalia. Even more important is that organisations like the WHO should vacate Switzerland and relocate to Nigeria, or some such place.

That idea is more important than you think. Such organisations should be located where the problems are, and not in the healthy, wealthy West.

I see Brexit as leaving the ‘European Union’ in the political sense rather than the economic sense. Immigration is not, in itself, economic. It is social. It vastly affects the infrastructure of places and imposes stresses and enormous costs on society. It is not about race.

Race, as such, has not been a problem for a long time. If there are to be immigration controls, then the should be based upon ‘spaces’. Do we have the housing to accommodate those people? Do we have the jobs? Do we have the schools and hospitals? Can the environment stand the influx?

It is too late now to correct the errors of Blair et al. I do not see why they did not see the vast problems which their ‘open door’ policy created.

Finally, for tonight, I do not see the importance of continuous economic growth. What is wrong with stability and contentment? What is wrong with having a nice place to live and an enjoyable, well-paid job? Why should the world be geared to anything other than that?

Given that ideal, why should Governments be determined to allow Puritans and Health Zealots to denormalise, criminalise, humiliate, ‘exile to the outdoors’, and otherwise persecute smokers who are decent, kind, thinking, generous, ordinary citizens who just happen to enjoy smoking tobacco?

The FCTC Treaty was nothing of the sort. It was not a Treaty. There was no ‘give and take’. There was no ‘quid pro quo’. It was and is an artificial construct. It was and is a means to direct what elected Governments must do.

I am surprised that Trump has not already undertaken a massive reform of the UN. It is a law unto itself. It is a dictator. Frankly, I do not see the use of it any more, and it costs a fortune for no benefit, other than giving politicians another stage to strut upon.

We need politicians who do not need salaries and pensions. Or rather, people who can put their careers on hold for a while. The idea of ‘a professional MP’ should be anathema, except that there is nothing ignoble about standing for Parliament again and again.

There is a continuum from the UN to the WHO to the EU to the Health Dept to the Local Authorities, to the Police to The People.

That linkage must be smashed.





8 Responses to “Does the Government Control Tobacco Control, or Is It Vice Versa?”

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    I think it is clear that the global tobacco control elites control governments (at multiple levels). One major mechanism of control is the FCTC, but others such as controlling the media and financial grants (bribes) are equally as important. The direct funding of tobacco control pressure groups (including the FCTC) would help.

    • junican Says:

      It is difficult to REALLY believe that there is an Elite which has conspired for years to control everyone and everything, but the more that happens indicative of such control, the more suspicious one becomes. The whole role of the House of Commons is precisely to stop such things, not to abet them.

  2. Rose Says:

    The WHO Partnership Project with the Drugs companies preceeded the FCTC treaty by four years, if you are a country running a Health Service you need access to drugs, so small sacrifices are necessary, why worry about a few people when you’ve got millions more that it won’t affect.

  3. Rose Says:

    Anyway, the Drugs companies gave the government of the day free nicotine patches.

    Choosing Health: Making healthy choices easier

    page 96

    “But as a society we can act to help smokers to make that difficult healthy choice and stick to it. We know that one of the greatest benefits from smoke-free public places is that people trying to give up smoking can find it easier to succeed if social pressures not to smoke are increased.”

    55. page 135
    “We have a well-established partnership with the manufacturers of NRT, who have an important role in public health and in the promotion of therapies.
    In 2003 we agreed an innovative deal with the companies involved, under which they provide free NRT patches to PCTs in recognition of the increased investment the NHS is making in stop smoking products.
    This arrangement will increase the resources available to the NHS to help even more smokers quit.”

    • junican Says:

      “Anyway, the Drugs companies gave the government of the day free nicotine patches.”

      A means to an end.

  4. prof local fluff Says:

    mass migration is fine until the indidgeonous are criminalised through the corruption of language ‘thought crime’ to raise concerns over the inability of the infrastructure that is supposedly controlled by our elected reps to handle them.

    • junican Says:

      Well, yes. ‘Islamophobia’, ‘Racism’, ‘Equality’. ‘Feminism’ all distract attention from the important words such as ‘infrastructure’.

  5. Manipulation By Distraction | Bolton Smokers Club Says:

    […] prof local fluff Says: 20/07/2017 at 09:56 | Reply   edit […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: