The Need For A Weapon


We have all pondered and investigated the reasoning behind the smoking ban. We have found that SHS (second hand smoke) danger has been vastly exaggerated and that bar workers, or any other workers, are not endangered by SHS. Even ‘Devil Doll’ himself said so. He said that he would not feel uncomfortable being in the presence of smokers. But it goes further than that. His investigations revealed a MASSIVE involvement of age in the putative effects of smoking. As I have said, again and again, if AGE is massively important in the effects of inhaling many, many ‘packets’ of tobacco smoke into the lungs over a period of time, then it is logical to assume that AGE is also massively important in the effects of SHS. It is logical to assume that vastly diluted tobacco smoke cannot possibly cause any significant harm unless a person lived for hundreds of years. But there is a paucity of such studies.

Of course there is. Who is going to fund them?

Enstrom and Kabat started off funded by the American Cancer Soc, but it stopped the funding when the results were not to its liking. E and K got funds from Big T to finish the the study. The data showed that SHS danger was non-existent. A WHO study, I forget its name, showed similar results in that SHS was not a factor in certain health problems. The UN tried to hide that study.

There is always a problem with any such studies. For example, if you try to grow plants in a plot which has a large component of cement, it is unlikely that you will get a good crop. But some plants may well do very well. You can never tell for certain. It is logical to assume that the presence of the cement caused the paucity of good plants, but did it also cause the presence of the superb plants?

It seems that all the ‘weapons’ needed to batter and wound smokers are in the hands of ‘Devil Arnott’ et al. But it is not just smokers. All the weapons needed to attack fatties and drinkers are also in the hands of The Zealots.

What weapons do ordinary decent people who enjoy a drink, or a cig, or a burger, have? They have no weapons at all.

And yet Brexit and Trump showed that rebellion is possible. But there is a problem in the UK. Politicians do not realise that the rebellion is not just about the EU. It is about WHAT THE PARTIES AGREE ABOUT AND IMPOSE. In that case, there is no meaningful ‘opposition’.

In the case of the smoking ban, there was a ‘free vote’. Bollocks! It was already known what the vote would be.

Smokers need a weapon. It used to be UKIP until ‘professional’ politicians captured it. It is now almost defunct.

But do not despair. ‘None of the above’, as an idea, is taking root. Voters need to be able to register their disapproval as well as their approval.

I WANT TO VOTE! But what can I do if no candidate represents me?

Further, how ‘deplorables’ vote for A or B when A or B offer the same persecution?

There is only one truthful answer. Do not vote.




People assume that PM May is similar to a USA President. She is not. She has the power to appoint Ministers, but she has no power to coerce MPs to become Ministers. She has the power to sack Ministers, but has no power to coerce them to remain in post.

The political situation as regards member of the Cabinet and who should be Ministers is NOT simply in the hands of the PM. First, she needs an advisory group. Let’s call it ‘her personal cabinet’ – her friends in the Party. They help spread the responsibility within the party! 

So what can go wrong?  It is perfectly obvious. People who have no skill in, for example, ‘Health’, become Junior Health Ministers. What do they do? They have no idea what to do. They LONG to have something to do to show that they are wonderful. Along comes the reptile, ASH:

My, my. Who is that smirking in the background behind the newly appointed Junior Health Minister, Steve Brine, other than the beatified and beautiful Saint Arnott? (H/T VGIF).

How could a Junior Minister be corrupted so quickly?

I think that it is all about ‘saintliness’. ‘Saint Deborah’ is the current pin-up in the Health Dept. But suppose that he/she was found to be taking back-handers from Big Pharma, either directly or indirectly?

Perhaps we can change the words. Obviously, Richard Doll was a really big Saint. “Saint Richard”. Perhaps we ought to refer to him as ‘Devil Doll”. I quite like that. It definitively puts him in Hell rather than in Heaven.

As far as we are concerned, ‘Saint Deborah’ becomes ‘Devil Arnott’.

There is every reason to describe ‘Devil Arnott’ et al in that way. They distort reality and inflict suffering upon nice, ordinary people who just happen to enjoy tobacco.

What has that to do with a POWERFUL cabinet?

It is about taking on the Devilish EU apparatus and defeating that ‘Devil’. It is about taking on and defeating the devilish FCTC money sponge, along with the whole devilish UN, WHO, IPCC, EU money sponge.

That is what a POWERFUL Cabinet means. It means changing ‘saints’ into ‘devils’.

Shutting Down ‘Lifestyle Control’


More and more bloggers ‘of repute’ are pouring scorn on ‘Public Health England’ (and Scotland and Wales). At the heart of their scorn lies the simple premise that ‘whole population’ remedies do not work.

But, you might say, what about immunisation? Hasn’t immunisation prevented masses and masses of ill-health and deaths? Certainly it has, but the two situations are totally different. In the case of immunisation, the ‘jab’ or whatever has been proven to kill the pathogen, and, in many cases, to provide immunity for years and years, if not for life. A person travelling to a country where malaria is a problem, would be stupid not to have the anti-malaria jab. Of course, there are always exceptions – people made ill by the jab – but they are rare and do not detract from the value of the jab.

On the other hand, imagine that there was no anti-malaria jab. Imagine that the medics were claiming that there was a massive epidemic of malaria throughout the world caused by people going to ‘malaria infested’ countries. Also, imagine that the solution that they proposed was that an extra tax was placed upon all travellers to anywhere by air, land or sea, to pay for the costs of the malaria ‘epidemic’. Oh, and the extra tax would deter people from travelling to malaria infested countries.

That imagining is not dissimilar to ‘whole population’ remedies. An alcohol unit price will deter alcoholics from buying alcohol. Maybe, but the real intention, not frequently mentioned, is that, as the years go by, the increased price will deter just enough people from drinking alcohol to excess so that a few people who might have become alcoholics will not.

The result is that millions of people who enjoy alcohol and who control their drinking pay massively more for their pleasure, with no expected health result! 

That is THE most important thing. Those millions of people, who are paying more, ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BECOME HEALTHIER! The claim that ‘hospital admissions’ would be lower means only that there might be fewer fights and accidents. But what ‘fewer fights and accidents’ actually means is fewer people going out to have some fun. But wait! Pub and club prices are not supposed to be affected, so why should fights and accidents be reduced?

I think that such idiocies need to happen more and more before the ‘whole population’ rebels. It would be nice to find a way for the ‘whole population of smokers’ to rebel, but it is not easy. Perhaps the ‘whole population’ has to include everyone who is being persecuted by ‘Public Health’. For be in no doubt, ‘Public Health (England or elsewhere)’ is NOT a benign organisation. It is a ‘deep state’ creation, far above the minions parading as MPs and Ministers, such as Theresa May.

We need a Trump. A REAL Trump. But that does not mean the same thing as it does in the USA. In the UK, it means a very powerful Cabinet, and not a powerful PM. A powerful Cabinet instructs the PM, and not vice versa. The only power that the PM has is to sack the Cabinet, but what if no one would accept positions? She would have to stand down. In former times, she could have called a General Election, but she cannot do that now. There has to be a Parliamentary majority to do so. The powers of the PM are much reduced these days.

Even so, a PM with courage could make much political capital from making a public speech about the oppression of The People and how he/she is going to reverse that. Brexit, Trump, Poland, Romania, Greece, show that The People are YEARNING to be released from the oppression.

But there is a very, very important question: it is ‘What has been of great value to The People of Europe, and what has been to their detriment?’ I doubt that the value of smoking bans could compare with the disaster of mass immigration from ‘malaria infested’ countries.


They Do So Because It Is Easy


I have an hour at most.

I still have trouble in understanding why politicians are so bendy and squashy. Do they start off having some sort of conviction, some sort of philosophy, and then gradually lose that conviction or philosophy as time passes and as they realise that, in the ‘real world’, only FORCE matters? By ‘Force’ I mean any sort of pressure.

Why did Blair introduce the Total Indoor Smoking Ban?  Why did not everyone in the leisure industry protest extremely vigorously? Why did not publicans etc march in their thousands in protest before the enactment?

It is easy to say that they were fooled by propaganda, but I personally do not see the propaganda as such a huge influence. I think that ‘the problem’ was more basic than that. I think that no one could actually BELIEVE that the smoking ban would actually happen.

I didn’t. I had some sort of ‘mental blockage’ which refused to accept the idea that I could not go the the pub, order a pint and have a cig at the bar with an ashtray to hand, and chat, or not, to other people, smokers or not.  Perhaps people who are condemned to death suffer similar blockages. They cannot actually accept, in their minds, that tomorrow, they will have a loop in a rope placed around their necks and be dropped through a trapdoor.

My experience of the start of the smoking ban was something similar. Perhaps soldiers in WW1 did not expect to be mowed down by machine gun fire.

It reasonably follows that Blair et al did not fully realise what they were doing. They too ‘blocked from their minds’ the consequences of such a ban. It is hard to believe that they believed that bar workers were dropping dead like flies as a result of SHS.

I doubt that they believed it. But I can imagine a situation where getting a smoking ban became a challenge for people like Blair et al. They would have been pestered to death by academic and medics, all acting in collusion, to do so. Blair et al figured and figured how to appease the medics and academics, always wanting to be seen as ‘saviours of the world’. And they came to the conclusion that a vast propaganda assault, backed up by a vast police assault, would do the trick. They would be seen as virtuous and enlightened.

It worked wonderfully well. Nothing was actually achieved health-wise, but the formula worked wonderfully well.

It proved to be easy.

And so we arrive at ‘alcohol unit pricing’. Like smoking bans, no one sees any sense to it. And they are right not to. Such things are communistic ‘one size fit all and someone somewhere will drink less’. That is the argument for Minimum Pricing. Clearly, Alcoholics will not stop drinking. Will fewer people become alcoholics?

That question reveals the motivation. It is EXPECTED that unit pricing will reduce the number of alcoholics, but there is no actual evidence that it will. It is a vague assumption, based upon computer models, which reflect only the biases of the programmers.

No matter how much messing about occurs in influencing politicians, the fact is that politicians look for the easy way out. They do not give a shit about you and me NOW. Why? Because voters, on the whole, are not very volatile. Labour voters vote Labour, Tories vote Tory. Those two are all that matters. You just need to please, or at least not annoy, your voters. The clever tactic is to so complicate things that your voters are perplexed and just accept your word.

Is that not exactly what has been happening as regards smoking?


The REAL Consequences of Public Health England


When you demand that only ‘Excellence’ is acceptable, you raise the barrier to such an extent that ‘success’ becomes almost un-achievable. It is interesting that the Cambridge dictionary did not recognise the word ‘unachievable’. It has to be hyphenated. If ‘uncertain’ is fine, why is not ‘unachievable’ fine? Maybe it is going to far to suggest that the deep state does not like the word ‘unachievable’ and blocks its use. Erm… Perhaps to far?

But the main thing is that success becomes almost unachievable.

We have this org called ‘National Institute For Health And Care Excellence’ (NICE). God only knows where it came from and what it is for. You can read all about its self-praise here:

But not only do we have ‘NICE’, but we also have ‘The medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency’ – MHRA. You can read about it here:

So one might reasonably ask what is the difference between the two, and why need there be two distinct orgs, doing much the same thing?

It is doubtful that even the cleverest of politicians could evaluate the worth of either or both of those organisations. But there is a test.

The test is whether or not a drug or whatever is ‘good enough’ on balance. It need not be perfect, but be good enough. The mere fact that an antibiotic does not work for one individual does not mean that that substance should be banned for everyone. But that requirement is what ‘Excellence’ means. ‘Excellence’ means ‘perfection’, for all intents.

Clearly, the Brexit vote was as near ‘imperfection’ as it is possible to get. It was most certainly not ‘Excellent’. Therefore, the Elite regard it as ‘not fit for use’, just as NICE and MHRA ban substances which fail their arbitrary tests. Who know what the expertise in MHRA and NICE is, or what their political biases are?

So what we see with Public Health England (PHE) is a rolling snowball, which looks very big, but has little substance.

What magnificent breakthrough in curing diseases has PHE produced? What magnificent breakthroughs have NICE and MHRA produced? In fact, one might reasonably conclude that they have caused masses of deaths.

ALL those suckers could be done away with, and it is perfectly simple. Separate ‘costs’ from hospitals. They need the doctors and nurses that they need. Cost is irrelevant. Only the clinical need is important. If you accept that idea, then several layers of ‘administration’ can be done away with and money applied to the places where it is needed.

I am reminded of this tobacco farm:

Watch it and see how ‘excellence’ is THE AVERAGE!!! ‘Excellence’ is not the most perfect plant. It is the ‘best that can be achieved’ on average.

PHE (Public Health England) is promoting, via its subsidiaries, NICE and MHRA, PERFECTION, way beyond what is possible.

PHE’s anti-smoker persecution reveals its amoral nature. Be in no doubt that ASH ET AL are servant of Public Health England.

PHE is as corrupt as it is possible to be.

Finding Something To Do


Chris Snowdon cites a typical example:

A world-first study has uncovered concerns that big tobacco companies are exploiting Twitter to regain the public’s trust.”

That sentence alone contains so much innuendo that it might just as well be describing old ladies with hooked noses, wearing black and a conical black hat, owning a black cat and riding through the skies on broomsticks.

If the ‘study’ is a world-first, it is because no one with any intelligence would have bothered to do it, other than to find something to do to justify receiving wages.

Such practices are exceedingly common in unaccountable bureaucracies.

So why are such practices not snipped in the bud? It can only be because the people who are supposed to snip these practices in the bud are part of the problem – they too want something to get paid for but something NOT to do. Or perhaps there is no such control.

If you were Chancellor of the Exchequer, and desperate to find addition funds for the NHS, what would you do? In asking that question, we must be aware that the problem is billions of pounds and not hundreds of thousands of pounds. The temptation is to ignore small costs and concentrate on big costs, and/or raise taxation.

The trouble with concentrating on big costs is that they are ‘big’ for a reason. They are big because they are necessary. EG, the number and cost of doctors and nurses in hospitals. But there must be myriads of costs which are unnecessary and, when added up, cost loads and loads of money.

Thus, ASH might command only half a million per an, but defunding ASH saves half a million. But that action would also saves the administrative costs of dealing with the ASH application for funding, which might well exceed to actual grant itself. Who knows?

Added together, the direct costs of Public Health, along with the indirect costs, are massive. Then add to that the costs of the WHO and its persecution of smokers via the FCTC. I say ‘persecution’ because ‘sin taxes’ are a feature of the WHO’s attack on smokers.

We have been deliberately distracted by TobCON into believing that there is a moral or ethical war going on between good and evil. Good is TobCON; bad is Tobcoms. There is no such war. It is artificial. The only people dropping bombs are TobCON people, and the are dropping bombs not on the Tobcoms, but upon ordinary, powerless people who enjoy tobacco.

There is a Gordian Knot, which politicians must cut. It is their fear of the medical profession and the cost of perpetuating guerrilla operations by a few of the practitioners of that profession, but who are not actually involved in practising medicine. They are ‘professors of Public Health’, who need lots of publicity to fill their courses in Unis.

For me, getting out of the EU is just a first step. We must somehow direct out Gov to cease to fund bureaucracies like the WHO, IPCC, etc. I hope that Trump in the USA SEES that imperative. Perhaps, if he did, news might spread about how those organisations are just leaches on our bodily fluids as ‘bodies of people’.

It is not that the UN must cease to exist. It is that, over the decades, it has become corrupt and wastes masses of money (via meetings and costs, and travel, and hotel costs, etc) discussing matters over which it has no possible control.

Again, we must consider Hayek’s contention that the decisions of billions of individuals cannot be projected, which is why the Communist ‘five year plans’ were doomed to failure. It isn’t just that you cannot project the demand for bread; it is also that you cannot project where and when bread will be most needed. There could be a surplus in one place and a deficit in another. Only a very active market everywhere can make the required adjustments needed at the time.

Tobacco Control has hit the buffers. It is frantic to find something to do to justify its funding. The pretence is that it needs to continue to exist because of tweets on twitter.

I do not know what to do about politics. The persecution of smokers has very definitely changed my view of what politicians do. Is bombing Syria justifiable? I do not see why it should be, in view of the Gov’s persecution of smokers. Is it OK to describe slightly plump school children as obese? No, it is not.

But is does not matter how school children are described. The only thing that matters is that the Zealots defunded and persecuted. TobCON needs to be persecuted.

Why Politicians Give In


I have often wondered why the like of Cameron gave in to Tobacco Control. ‘Plain packaging’ is very much a case in point. There was no need to introduce that policy at that time. The Australian experiment was in its early days. It would have been quite easy for Cameron to say, “Let’s wait and see what happens in Oz”. But he did not.


Perhaps we should reverse the question. Perhaps we should ask what the political imperative was which forced Cameron to bring in PP. That is, Cameron had very little room to manoeuvre.


I think that the answer is very simple, and ought to be obvious. It is that there is no rational response to, “SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!”

So Cameron had no alternative. If he refused to introduce PP, then he would have been accused of ‘DOING NOTHING TO REDUCE THE MASSIVE TOLL OF SMOKING HARM’.

Very simple. And masses of professors and doctors would have screamed and screamed, and masses of opinion polls would have shown 70% in favour.

I think that the persecution of smokers by politicians (remember that it is the politicians who pass the laws) is entirely based upon fear of being accused, almost always via quotes from ‘Professors’ or ‘Doctors’ in the press, of failing to apply the sticking plaster of smoking bans which might just prevent very old people from dying.

Is there an answer? YES THERE IS!! the Organisation called ‘Public Health England’ was only created a few years ago. The political answer is to destroy that leach by de-funding it. It is obvious that PHE was never intended to be anything other than a political advocacy group. Who proposed its creation in the first place?


Politicians ‘give in’ because it is the easy way out. They cannot be accused of ‘Doing Nothing’ if they ‘do something’.

Take plastic bags. I do not know what percentage of the use of plastic is attributable to plastic shopping bags. As far as I know, no one has worked out how extensively plastic is used these days as compared other substances. Rubber? Hot water bottle were made from rubber. Perhaps they still are, if anyone needs them these days.

Plastic is a major part of ALL domestic appliances, including cars. This laptop is mostly composed of plastic. Plastic is WONDERFUL because it does not conduct electricity, unlike metal.

So why did the Gov capitulate to the ‘plastic bag ban syndrome’?

Only to be seen to be doing something about saving whales.

That is all! To be seen to be seen to be ‘doing something’. 70% agree. 99.99% of plastic use will be unaffected because it is essential to our civilisation.

Is it not horribly depressing? Where and when does the persecution stop?

The only answer that I can see is de-funding. De-fund ALL lobby groups. If they have value, then they will get funding from individuals, but beware funding from Big Pharma or Big Charities.

Fear of being accused of ‘failure to act’ is a dangerous political motivation. It might be useful now, but is fraught with danger for the future.

Cameron was a very, very stupid person.


The Equivalence of National Politics with The Game of Chess


I have known how to play chess since I was about 15. A teacher introduced our class to the game. For some reason, it caught on, and we all started to play – well, most of us. We knew the permitted moves, but we were totally ignorant about ‘strategy’. But that was very much part of the enjoyment of playing. ANYTHING could happen. You might make a massive error and lose your queen, but you carried on, because you had not yet been checkmated (your king had not been ‘captured’). You fought on to the bitter end. You made it as difficult as possible for your opponent to capture your king. And, there was always the possibility of ‘stalemate’, which describes a situation where all possible moves are blocked and the king can move this way or that way and avoid capture. Imagine something like a bull fighter who can jump behind a wall, emerge, and then jump back. He will not defeat the bull, but will not be gored by the bull. That is ‘stalemate’.

I was pondering in my mind why so few ‘laws’ were repealed by a newly elected political party. If the Tories replace Labour, why is it that they NEVER, NEVER, EVER, repeal the laws and regulations imposed by the previous Labour Gov. Why is that? In opposition, they opposed the laws and regulations, but, in government, they perpetuate them. It does not matter whether Lab, Tory or Lib made the law/regulation. For some reason or other, the fact that they opposed does not mean that they opposed.

We see this ambivalence especially as regards smokers. It is obvious that a particular group of Zealots would love to drop a huge atom bomb on the UK, provided that it only atomised smokers.

It is beyond PERFECTLY OBVIOUS, beyond PERFECTLY OBVIOUS,  that smokers must either obtain their tobacco from outside the UK or stop buying tobacco. It must be quite sudden. But there is no organisation which could orchestrate such an initiative. But it has been obvious for a long time that ASH ET AL have been shooting at smokers, lobbing hand-grenades at smokers, stealing their money, disrupting their supply-lines.

But the word ‘SMOKING’ is the wrong word. ‘SMOKERS’ is the right word. SHS is produced by SMOKERS, who are disgusting, filthy, stinking.

EVERY REGULATION AND LAW persecutes SMOKERS, and has no effect whatsoever on ‘smoking’ in itself.

But the idea of failure to repeal laws and regulations is important. It never seems to have happened except under duress. As far as I know, no political party has gained power and immediately set about repealing laws created by the other party.

The reality is that NO political party wants ‘revolution’, peaceful or otherwise.

That is why we need a new political party. UKIP was possible until it lost its imperative when Brexit occurred.

We need a party which wants REVOLUTION!


The Appalling Price of Tobacco Products


The Zealots like to say that smokers are depriving the families of basic necessities because they buy cigs. But who created the problem, if there really is one? It was the Zealots themselves who did so. It was they who demanded that smokers should be priced out of the market ‘to help them’. It was they who distorted the market to such an extent that the price of cigs eats into poorer people’s disposable income. And they did it by salami slicing.

Salami slicing works well at first. Most people hardly notice an increase in duty of, say, 2% above inflation. At first. It is only when that 2% above inflation becomes really onerous, being a sizeable amount of money, that people sit up and take notice.

And then they start asking questions: Why exactly are we paying so much extra tax on petrol? What is the reason? Why are we paying so much extra tax on beer? What is the reason? I don’t have much income, but you are making me pay excessive taxes on my little pleasures in life? Why?

It is only when people start asking such fundamental questions that politicians take notice. But it seems always to be the case that fundamentalists are very hard to dislodge.

As a catholic boy, I was taught that missing mass on a Sunday was a mortal sin. A mortal sin is one which would send you to hell without passing GO, if you pegged out without having been to confession and repented. In my parish, the church was always full to overflowing on Sundays.

And then I went on a cycling trip to France. On the Sunday, I went to mass in the cathedral in Lile. I was absolutely astonished to see that this vast cathedral held only about 50 mass-goers. I could not believe it. It was almost empty. A vast and beautiful cathedral was almost empty at Sunday mass.

I use that only as an example of how a kind of invisible force can be exerted. The invisible force depends upon the acceptance of invisible tenets. [A ‘tenet’ is an accepted principle] One such invisible tenet is that you MUST obey the law. Note that the tenet is the word ‘MUST’. But the more complex that ‘the law’ becomes, the more often that it fails to be observable. The ‘Windrush’ case is a good example. People who arrived here from the West Indies decades ago without traceable documentation are being told that they are illegal immigrants. One might ask, “If they have no documentation, how do you know where to expatriate them to? How do you know that they came from the West Indies?” The odd thing is that Amber Rudd was blinded by an invisible tenet [that there was a law at the time that immigrants had to be documented].

But are they not all the same? Is Theresa May a genius? She was parachuted in as PM when blithering idiot Cameron resigned, and she almost lost the GE. She was against Brexit and now claims to be wholeheartedly supporting Brexit. She must be a genius to be able to juggle conflicting tenets.

I suspect that MPs have been confused by invisible tenets for decades. One the one hand, they have been told, again and again, that smoking is disastrous for health and that it inflicts massive costs on the NHS. People who smoke get ill.  The tenet stops there. No one asks, “If no one smoked, would no one get ill?” Or, “If no one smoked, would no one die?”

So everything depends upon ‘PREMATURITY’. That is another tenet. It is somehow magically important that a person should not die before he is destined to die.

Critical things are happening politically, but there are few signs that any of the major political parties are intellectually ready to ditch policies which persecute minorities and the poorest people.

Tobacco taxes are the ‘sign-post’.

Minimum alcohol pricing has been imposed in Scotland. Thus, another layer of invisible force has been applied. The invisible force is that everyone must suffer because there is a law.

I don’t know how change can be brought about. It certainly cannot be brought about by the repeal of smoking bans or the reduction of tobacco taxes. The problem is much deeper. Tobacco taxes and smoking bans are just symptoms of a deeper malaise.

In a way, I can understand the need for politicians to find a way to combat globalisation of commerce and industry. That is what the EU is for and is what the UN has become. Do globalised industries control the world or do the people?

How weird is it that attempts to control global industries translate into persecuting the people!

The People come FIRST! It must be recognised that ‘health’ is just one of many yearnings of mankind. It is not something to be imposed by a higher authority. For many people, it is not important. A pleasant life is more important.

So it is clear that the abolition of tobacco duties, petrol duties, alcohol duties MUST be a serious objective of Government. VAT is enough. But such an idea would involve revolution.

What form would the revolution take?

When Will The Penny Drop?


There is a BMJ podcast which someone linked to which I have just listened to. I had to force myself to listen to it because I find all tobacco control zealots to be insufferably condescending. But I am glad that I did.

It was called “Should we recommend e-cigarettes to help smokers quit?”

You can listen to it here:

The blurb said that Arnott was involved, but she was not. The persons involved were Paul Aveyard, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Kenneth C Johnson, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

As I said, I had to force myself to listen, and I am glad that I did. This character, Johnson, had me, literally, ‘laughing out loud’. Perhaps he did not realise that he was talking to ‘health professionals (via the BMJ)’ and not a newspaper reporter. If his skill as an epidemiologist is as woeful as his understanding of human nature, I despair for his students. He bangs on and on about how the tobacco industry’s hope to profit from ecigs. He vaguely quotes studies which he says show that there is a gateway effect from ecigs to smoking. Everything that he says is an exaggeration; the usual thing – the evidence is ‘overwhelming’-type statement. Anyone who follows these things knows that there is NO evidence at all that ecigs cause people to move to cigs. Prior use of ecigs does NOT indicate causation.

At least the British guy made sense. If the use of ecigs rises and the use of cigs falls, in the same timescale, then it is possible that the use of ecigs caused the decline. It is not possible that the use of ecigs caused an increase in the use of cigs. I was surprised how patient the British guy was with Johnson.

When will the penny drop? It was so, so obvious that Johnson was not in the slightest bit interested in health. All he was interested in was his personal vendetta against Tobcoms. Nor, for the most part, are ASH ET AL. They too, all of them,  the professors of public health etc, are only interested in making as much money as possible out of the gravy train which is ‘public health’.

I cannot see how politicians can be passengers on the gravy train, unless they take bribes. So what is in the persecution of smokers for them? I just do not see it at all. We have an election for a councillor going on at the moment. Herself and I have voted for the UKIP candidate. We could not vote for the Tory because he/she delights in persecuting smokers, and the same applies to Labour. The Greens are even worse. Our choice will not be elected, but what difference does it make? Our vote is a protest vote. I see nothing wrong with a protest vote. Was not Trump’s election the result of vast numbers of Americans exercising a protest vote? In bygone times, Hilary’s head would have been off by now.

Another interesting piece of news was about turmoil in prisons. You can read about it here:

‘Official’ supplies of tobacco, presumably purchasable in a prison shop, have ceased. Clearly an experiment to see what happens if tobacco is prohibited. What has happened is that prisoners have upped the anti. They are now going for ‘Spice’. As far as I can see, Spice is a potent form of ‘grass’ – Marijuana. But you can read more here:

But will the ‘authorities’ reverse the tobacco ban? Extremely improbable. They would rather spend billions of pounds combating Spice than take the simple step of providing prisoners with a shop where they can buy tobacco at normal prices.

So how will the persecution end?

It will only end when politicians realise that they have been duped into persecuting the citizenry. It is important to understand that just because smokers are only 20% of the voter base, and are ashamed, that they are NOT powerless. The more that I feel ashamed, the more that I want to strike out. Every time that I take ‘the walk of shame’ to my exile to the outdoors, I vow to fight, fight and fight again.

But what do I fight for? It is simple. It is to be recognised as an individual who ENJOYS tobacco and has a perfect right to do so; to be afforded space to drink my beer and enjoy my tobacco in a pub, if the owner permits it; for restaurants to have areas with ashtrays on the tables; for maitre-des  to be able to announce “Ladies and Gentlemen, you may now smoke”.

If you think about how easily devastating wars have ‘happened’ in the past, without any real reason, of which WW1 is the prime example, it is easy to see how TobCON has gained so much power. The same applies to Alcohol Prohibition in the USA. It is because of weak politicians. PM Blair permitted the smoking ban in 2007. He was weak. And yet he permitted the devastation of Iraq. He was weak.

All prohibitions and bans come from weak politicians, or incompetent politicians. Prohibitions are the easy way out. Persecutions are the easy way out. It has always been so.

So when will the penny drop? When will our current gang of MPs realise that persecuting smokers is not a vote winner?