The Cold, Calculating Intention to Exterminate Smokers

Nick Clegg sort of gave it away a day or two ago. He said that it was old people who swung the Brexit vote and that a new vote should be taken soon because many of those old people will have died. You would almost think that he hoped that they would have died. In fact, depending upon how serious the situation was, his statement could be interpreted in the manner of, “Will no one rid us of these turbulent old farts?”.

We also see the latest twist in law interpretation. It is forbidden by EU Directive to ‘promote’ ecigs. The question is: Does a recommendation in a TV advert, of whatever sort, to take up vaping, ‘promote’ ecigs? The Zealots are twisting and turning to point out that the Directive mentions ‘commercial’ promotion, so that CRUK can run an advert on TV ‘promoting’ ecigs as ‘swapping’ a dangerous activity for an almost harmless activity. There seems to be a problem in that the law as enacted in the UK changed the word ‘commercial’ into the phrase ‘in the course of business’. Even that was further compromised by TV advertising guidance which dropped even ‘in the course of business’ and said bleakly:

10.1.11. ​electronic cigarettes and refill containers or any advertisement which has the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting such a product.” 

Note the words ‘…direct or indirect…’.

So CRUK is claiming that because it does not actually name a specific product, it can advertise ecigs and ‘promote’ ecigs.

Could an ecig manufacturing or selling association ‘promote’ ecigs in the same way? If CRUK can do so, why cannot such an association? Why cannot it say that ‘scientists’ have found that ecigs are at least 95% less dangerous than cigs, quoting PHE England?

CRUK is not an arm of Government. It is a ‘charity’ aka, a private money-making enterprise which enriches its employees, especially those at the very top. It is not ‘Public Health’ even if it masquerades as such. ‘Public Health England’ is ‘Public Health’.

The lesson is clear. The EU Directive on Ecigs was a hastily cobbled together mishmash of the ideas of ANTI-NICOTINE Zealots, and not ‘anti-tobacco’ Zealots – aided and abetted by Big Pharma ‘Partners’ (aka Funders).

The UK Gov at the time that the Directive was passed, aided and abetted the mishmash via its representative, Soubry MP, who voted for the ecig section in order not to delay passage of the directive. She pretended to believe that the ecig section had been dropped and she was backed up by her adviser, Andrew Black. I feel sure that she lied, and that she knew very well that the ecig section had not been dropped.

She was subsequently sacked and Black was promoted. Says a lot.

There are a few people in Public Health who recognise ‘personal rights’, but they seem to have lost out to the hardliners. You do not need to go as far as ‘the final solution’ to exterminate smokers, you can go as far as ‘the end game’, which is much the same thing.

156 (?) ‘public health’ organisations wrote a letter condemning Phillip Morris’s plan to contribute millions of dollars to research ‘Tobacco Harm Reduction’. Their main contention was a shriek of pain in that PMI was usurping their function. Aside from the fact that almost none of those organisations were actually ‘public health’, it is clear that their only interest was their own survival. The PMI initiative might put every one of those ‘businesses’ out of business.

The shriek of pain has echoed around the Globe. What is important about the PMI initiative is that there will be little need for epidemiological studies. The research should reveal FACTS and not vague risks and associations.

Politicians will have real problems stopping the PMI initiative. Would they dare to try?


%d bloggers like this: