What Is Worth Arguing About?

The more that I read about ‘Public Health’, the more that my mind becomes uncomfortable. It is also true that the older I get, the more curious I become about what will cause me to die. I am 78, so I cannot expect to survive much longer. Certainly, the fact that I have been smoking since I was about 19 does not yet seemed to have caused my death. In fact, my smoking does not seemed to have caused any significant damage to my body as yet.

I set to and dug over my newly extended ‘plantation’ area a couple of days ago. It was quite hard physical work. Whilst I was digging, I wondered if I might have a heart attack or a stroke or something, and collapse onto the ground dead. But nothing happened except that the plot is now a heap of lumps of soil which the recent freezing weather has rendered solid objects. I am not dead.

The importance of the freeze is that it cause water in the soil to expand and create billions of little holes. When the water ‘melts’, it just drains away, leaving the holes. The holes fill with whatever is in the air. Amusing, I suppose.

But I suppose that gardeners and agriculturalists could argue ad inf about the benefits of freezing. Some might point out that tropical areas never freeze, but they are still ‘fruitful’. Others might extol the virtues of fertilisers, or rotation of crops.

But what it all comes down to is different ways of achieving the same objective – fertility.

What is noticeable about ‘Public Health’ is that it produces no benefit. It does not produce happiness or contentment. I fact, the whole objective of ‘public health’ seems to be to produce discontent.

So perhaps we should all ask ourselves whether or not the massively expensive organisation ‘Public Health England’ is just not worth recognising. Why bother to argue with it? It is a cult. You cannot argue with a cult.

But what you can do is take every opportunity that you can illustrate the cultish nature of ‘Public Health England’. Because it is a cult, it has no understanding that it might have a termination date. It must exist for all eternity.

And politicians have the same idea. They imagine that they are Gods whose laws exist for all eternity.

The reality of the World is that, for the next hundred years or so, any increase in CO2 will benefit forests and crops, but the benefit will be small, because the level of CO2 is small, as compared with eons ago.

There is nothing about that worth arguing about.

There is nothing worth arguing about regarding SHS. There never has been. The reason is that no studies have ever considered the timescale for recognisable harm.

But we smokers can see that Tobcoms missed the point, years ago, when they tried to obfuscate. They should have demanded that the anti-smoking Zealots show reasons that tobacco, in any form, should not be banned. Perhaps they feared that tobacco would be banned.

The only thing worth arguing about is a ‘tobacco ban’. Not a smoking ban.

It amuses me to see the massive rise in cottage industries. Demanding ‘permits’ to import leaf is a joke. No self-respecting dodgy importer would ever have allowed himself/herself to appear on customs radar.

So, ‘what is worth arguing about’ is when the persecution will end. I suspect that it will be when tobacco product revenues collapse. Sometimes, these things seem to have a life of their own – they do not respond to legislation. They just collapse, and revenue dries up, suddenly.

Smoking bans are not worth arguing about. They are not the important thing, What is important, and always has been, is freedom.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “What Is Worth Arguing About?”

  1. Blazeaway Says:

    I too suspect that the persecution will end when revenues diminish/disappear.

    That is why they are lining up things to campaign about – alcohol, salt, fat, sugar.

    They have already started to warm them up. In fact, they are quite a long way down the road with them.

    Anything to do with diet could become a bigger moneyspinner than tobacco, encompassing as it does tinned food, fresh food, takeaway food, pre-prepared food, restaurant food and drink.

    • junican Says:

      I am not sure, but I seem to remember that tobacco revenues stayed at much the same level despite increases in duty. The other way round – increases in duty did not produce more revenue. But the ‘Laffer Curve’ says that there will come a point where duty increases will start to have a much more serious effect on revenue. In effect, people will stop buying taxed stuff in droves. Revenues then collapse.
      I don’t think that diet is the same at all. For example, pop is liable for VAT. If parents started giving their children water, then VAT revenues from pop would fall. The same applies to biscuits and chocolate, etc.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    I would say tobacco revenues must be collapsing. Everyone i know treats themselves to a foreign holiday and brings their cigs back. No silly packaging either !

  3. junican Says:

    The ‘authorities’ rely upon smokers who smoke only a little – say, ten a day. They are the only people who pay full price. If those people ever got their heads together, and realised that they could buy a year’s supply (about 4000 cigs = 20 x 200) in one three day trip on a
    ferry costing a couple of hundred pounds, which they could pay for on their credit card profitably, there would indeed be a total collapse in tobacco revenue. Non-smokers would have to pay more taxes to replace the lost revenue!

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: