At Last, A Health Sec Seems to be Moving Slightly in the Right Direction

I refer you to this article by Simon Clark:

http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/6/government-to-target-smokers-and-problem-drinkers.html

The Health Sec is one Mathew Hancock (never heard of him). It seems that he wants to move away from whole population nannying and target ‘help’ at people who appear in hospitals and such. I remember reading about one (one!!!) local authority which was pretty successful in helping people who suffered from drink problems by going one to one with each individual, but I cannot remember the details or which authority.

He even admitted that it was nice to have a few beers from time to time. But he didn’t say that it was nice to be pleasantly plump or to enjoy the odd cigar from time to time.

What really annoys me with these people is the way that they objectify people. Instead of saying that they will do everything necessary, including force, to beat up smokers until they stop smoking, they talk about ‘smokING’ as though it existed as a separate entity from the smokERS. The same applies to obesiTY and problem drinkING.

I had that experience in hospital myself. I told the pre-op people that I drank a litre of red wine per day. The lady was horrified. “That’s over 100 units per week! The ‘limit’ is 14 units”. How quickly the new instructions are passed down!  Anyway, before I had the op, I was approached by a lady from the ‘alcohol unit’ who had a prepared spiel about the damage that alcohol can do. Whatever I said, she was not deterred from reciting her spiel. My question: “If you can’t enjoy yourself when you are 79 year old, when can you enjoy yourself?” brought a blank look as she continued with her lecture. I was amused when one of the nurses later whispered to me, “I agree with you”.

But they seem to be unable to stop pushing. Not long ago, after the op, I had a CT scan. Since my problem has been bladder, I was surprised when the CT scan supervisor said that they also wanted to check my kidneys. That might be totally innocent since your kidneys are what extract impurities from your bloodstream and direct them to your bladder, along with surplus fluids of one sort or another. But I couldn’t help but think that the ‘alcohol police’ had had a hand in it. I dare say that they would just love to tell me that my kidneys were in a mess.

These people, the ‘alcohol police’, ‘smoking police’, ‘obesity police’ seem to have some sort of overriding power, a bit like Scotland Yard’s ability to push local police to one side.

So we can see what Hancock’s instructions from PHE have been. Anyone guilt of bodily fatness must be referred to the special force fatness unit for correction. The fatness unit will take over from there.

There is a difference with smokING though. There is no equivalence to ‘obesity’ (being far too plump) and ‘problem drinking’ (getting pissed and injuring yourself). As we know, heavy smokers’ lungs have been used in transplants. The crazy part about the whole situation is that logic should say that, for most people, smoking is rather harmless, but the Zealots have turned logic on its head and said that the evidence of comparative harmlessness indicates no safe level. It would be correct, therefore, to say that there is no safe level of flying in aircraft since you can never say which one will eventually crash and kill everyone. The risk of being killed in such a crash are huge, but the risk of being involved in such a crash are tiny.

I may be wrong, but I do not remember seeing recently any study which is the equivalent of Doll’s Doctors Study, or anything like it. Tobacco these days is very much more refined than it was in Doll’s day. I personally remember when filter tips were really brown with tar. These days, the filter tips are hardly brown at all. Do smokers still have a greater likelihood of dying from LC than non-smokers? If so, what is the difference? After all, in Doll’s day, the air was often filled with industrial smoke before the clean air acts, and many of his doctors were involved in WW1.

We cannot expect the persecution of smokers via taxes and bans to diminish, but at least the Health Sec is drifting away from massively expensive campaigns. Perhaps he might also drift away from financing university ‘studies’ which fart about with trivialities. And, get rid of ASH.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “At Last, A Health Sec Seems to be Moving Slightly in the Right Direction”

  1. buckothemoose Says:

    Don’t count on it. I think he’s said he won’t do population level things like minimum alcohol pricing, as they affect everyone, but he seems happy to continue targeting smokers and drinkers with expensive ad campaigns and has some new ones lined up
    We’re still definately fair game

  2. Mark E. Smith (@fubarista) Says:

    Yes, the goal is to kill off smokers. It is an openly planned genocide, just like the Nazis, who also banned smoking, did with Jews. First they used government propaganda to demonize and dehumanize Jews, then they took away the legal rights of Jews, and then they killed as many Jews as they could. Smokers have been demonized and dehumanized by government propaganda, smokers have lost our legal rights in California, and California plans to be smoke-free by 2030, just as the WWII Germany openly planned to be Jew-free.

    What confuses people is the “smoke-free” goal, which targets smokers and people who do anytthing tobacco-related or that might possibly be perceived as similar to anything tobacco-related. For example, smoking bans apply to chewing tobacco, snuff, and vaporizers that do not contain any nicotine, none of which produce tobacco smoke. Pollution from the combustion of toxic chemicals which comes out of a smokestack, is NOT considered to be smoke, since it does not involve smokERS.

    California does not plan to be smoke-free, it plans to be smoker-free. During the recent wildfires I was actually hoping this hypocritical fascist state would burn to the ground, even with me in it, as at 78, having smoked for 62 years, I’ve been under so much stress due to the smoking bans that I’d really rather be dead.

    I’m in San Diego, so I’m still alive due to our mild climate, but I believe that tens of thousands of elderly smokers in colder states may have died from exposure, having been forced to go outside to smoke even in the most extreme weather. Naturally their deaths from exposure were called “smoking-related.” This may be a slow genocide, but it is genocide nonetheless.

    • junican Says:

      It is awful to hear how bad things are there. There is something about California which is especially depressing, but I cannot put my finger on it. Perhaps it because the climate is so pleasant that sitting outdoors is ‘the norm’ so that the only way to persecute smokers enough to hurt them is to ban smoking where people smoke – outdoors. It certainly has nothing to do with health.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: