‘Progressive’

I must admit that I do not know what the word ‘progressive’ means. Imagine that you want to create a path through dense woodland. You would need to organise workers with axes and spades to chop down trees and dig out roots. They would also need to create a hard surface for a path or road. ‘Progress’ would be determined by how far the clearance of trees and scrub had been achieved and the path/road laid. Depending upon the number of workers and supplies, ‘progress’ might be 20 yards per day. Thus, if the total length of the path/road was a mile, then it would take 1760 yards divided by 20 to ‘progress’ to the end of the project – 88 days, or about 3 months. No doubt the workers and bosses would have a party of some sort when the project was completed and they would all be proud of what they had achieved.

‘Progress’ requires an end result, otherwise it cannot be measured. If there is no specific end result, then your ‘progress’ might be entirely in the wrong direction.

Thus, for an action to be ‘progressive’, it must have an immediate putative, but definite, end result.

You might not be wrong if you worked out that the immediate end result, despite all the blather of ‘progressives’, of the smoking ban was the decimation of pubs. The smoking ban did not deter smokers. It killed pubs. So ‘progress’ would be measured by the number of pub closures, week by week, after the imposition of the ban.

But the imposition of massive, unjust taxes on tobacco products could be regarded as ‘progressive’, if ‘progress’ meant diminution of sales. For some reason or other, which ‘progressives’ failed to observe, there appeared a different form of ‘progress’, being contraband, and multiple other forms of ‘progress’. Some people capitulate easily but others fight. What it comes down to in the end is whether or not the cost of ‘progress’ exceeds the benefits of the objective.

That is what happened in the USA. The production of ‘hooch’ overwhelmed the cost of enforcement. Further, taxation funds were zero. Thus, ‘the end result’ of ‘Progress’ was nowhere in sight.

If PM May regards her Brexit solution as ‘the right thing for Britain’, then she is guilty of ‘progressivism’ in the worse possible way. There is no end result. There is nothing which can be measured. The ‘progress’ is heading in a vague direction and cannot be measured. It is a recipe for disaster.

And the same applies to TobCON. All its efforts have been the exact opposite of ‘progress’ since they have no immediate end result. Instead, they have been punitive, in the hope that tobacco product sales by Tobcoms will fall. Those may have fallen, but the black market has taken up the slack.

What should happen is that the Gov terminates the funding of the leaches and terminates uni courses on ‘tobacco studies’. Thus, youths who have committed themselves to heavy debts as a result of those courses could be ‘forgiven’ the debts because they were conned into engaging in those worthless courses.

But people like Glanz will walk away very rich.

I hope that, eventually, a pub will say ‘smoking allowed’, and no one will give a shit. That is what usually happens.

 

 

Advertisements

6 Responses to “‘Progressive’”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Sooner the better Junican then we can have a social life again. Get rid of plain packaging too.

  2. kin_free Says:

    ‘Progressive’, as a noun, means ‘innovator’ or ‘modernist’ etc. but as an adjective it means ‘happening or developing gradually in stages’. That ‘developing’ can be good as in moving forward – or indeed bad – as in progressive liver or heart failure. In this case it means the disease cannot be cured and while medication can slow its development, it will continue to get progressively worse or severe. The only cure is to remove and replace the diseased organ.

    THIS is how I see smoke bans and many other ‘healthist’ agendas. I’m sure that that is also how many ‘progressive anti-smokers’ also understand and promote their agenda – purporting to be doing good while actually doing the opposite! It is another good example of Orwellian-speak.

    I have heard many state that the anti-smoker prohibition agenda can only be delayed (not cured) by reasoned argument. It will continue to get progressively worse – the only solution is to destroy it and ‘go after’ the perpetrators.

    • junican Says:

      I think that ‘go after the perpetrators’ is a non-starter. The only thing that can reasonably be done is negate them by, for example, defunding them. That is a political decision. One courageous and determined MP could mess things up for TobCON significantly, such as by enquiring how much lottery money is siphoned off to ASH ET AL, etc. He has every right to demand that lottery money goes ONLY to charities which are actually at the sharp end. There are thousands and thousands of them. ASH would not exist if it had to rely upon voluntary donations.

  3. kin_free Says:

    What I mean when I say ‘go after the perpetrators’ is two fold; Never miss an opportunity to expose any lies / exceptional exaggerations / suppressions they use to promote their prohibition cause. This serves to raise awareness amongst the public today. If possible, record the detail for evidential purposes and Identify those who promote them – for tomorrow. However, beware of falling foul of libel laws. While telling the truth is not libel, the truth can be determined by those who have the most money to deem it so.

    I agree that de-funding is the way to go, but I see no politician with the courage or the inclination to take this on. The anti-smoker prohibition industry is very wealthy and wields much power within political circles. ASH is a relatively small player and lottery funding is peanuts within the grand scheme. ASH’s purpose appears to be merely to ensure politicians know where the power lies and who is in control. (eg. In 2006 ASH made sure that politicians were made aware that they had been subject to a ‘confidence trick’. It was a con trick that got Tony Blair et al to agree to the English smoker bans. Smoking bans have caused so much social, economic and health damage, and thereby ensured that they toed-the-line thereafter).

    With a publicly funded, eye watering, annual budget of around £4.5 Billion, ‘Public health’ is where the real power lies today and it is a growth industry at the moment too. It has become a healthist, anti-smoker, temperance movement – on steroids.

    While front-line NHS services, Police, Military etc are suffering swingeing cuts, ‘public health’ is ‘filling its boots’ and growing its power base;
    eg,
    Public Health Specialty Registrar
    Salary: £30606 – £49091; AfC
    Applications are invited for approximately 60 vacancies in the Public Health training programme at ST1 level across England, Scotland and Wales

    (Note the; “Well it’s that time of year Again…”!)

  4. kin_free Says:

    ps. Still time to get your application in Junican – doesn’t close until tomorrow! (pps. That’s a joke not an insult!)

    • junican Says:

      It is, in fact, an insult, my friend! How could you think such a thought? The mere fact that you thought the thought is an insult! Also, it is clearly ‘white supremacist’.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: