Is The Tobacco Control Money Supply Drying Up?

08/09/2017

A few years ago, maybe three years or so, tobacco control was vaguely passed to local authorities. In our local area, TC went mad and produced reams of ‘studies’ about smoking being most prevalent amongst ‘the lesser sort’ – the poorest people, and such. Plans were proposed. Since then, I have seen nothing else. Pressure has been put upon local authorities to reduce costs. I think that councillors, or rather the ‘powers-that-be’, realised that paying for all these pie-in-the-sky ‘studies’ and ‘plans’ was a waste of money and quietly shelved the whole thing. Since that first plethora of blatherings, I have seen nothing more. What local authorities generally seem to have done is to turn the anti-smoking zealotry into a money-making scam by authorising private firms to follow smokers in the street and then fine them on the spot  for ‘littering’ if they drop a cig end. That has absolutely nothing to do with health.

I think that anyone who walks around smoking in the town centre deserves the fine if they do not have the sense to carry a small metal box into which to place their cig ends. But that does not excuse local authorities from acting like muggers. There was a case only a day or so ago in which an elderly gentleman was cornered in a shop. A private firm fine collection thug thought he saw the gentleman drop a cig end in the street. Accompanied by another thug, the thug asked the chap to step outside. He refused. The shop owner asked the thugs to leave, but they would not. She called the police. She asked the police if she had the right to tell the thugs to leave, and she was told to look it up on the internet. The police forced the chap to go outside where he was issued with a penalty notice. Perhaps I should say that the police ‘invited’ him to go outside, but it comes to the same thing as ‘forced’.

There is no doubt that the above is a depiction of a ‘Police State’. It is not the duty of the police to support thugs.

The above supports my contention that tobacco control has been turned into a money making scam. The local authorities are not that much different from criminal gangs who trade in drugs. Money is the driver.

It seems to me that the honest intentions of the original anti-smoking zealots, such as Richard Doll, to tell people to cut down on their smoking, were very quickly converted into total cessation. I’m sure that I read somewhere in Doll’s Doctors Study that he recognised that, within the lifetime of a human being, it was the TOTALITY of smoking which was dangerous, and not smoking in itself. The longer and harder that you smoked, the more likely that it would hurt you within your lifetime. The fate of light smokers was not that much different from non-smokers.

What happens is that reasonable suggestions gradually change into dictats. There ALWAYS seems to be that process. Politicians seem to be helpless in the face of dictatorial demands from people who have nothing to lose.

But politicians, weak and subservient though they are, do have one weapon at their disposal which they can use without public opprobrium. It is THE MONEY, once again. TC demands more and more money. It comes down to the meme “One life saved is worth a billion pounds”. Erm…. How do you deny that? The answer is simple: “Would you personally give up all your wealth and possessions to save the life of someone you don’t even know?”

TC money, in the UK, is winding down. Researchers are gradually applying for grants to study obesity, sugar and salt. For a change, politicians now have the upper hand. Whether they grasp the nettle or not is a different thing. Perhaps they will continue to be scared of ‘Public Health’.

The ‘healthy, wealthy West’ is full of jolly, plump, long-living people. The East is full of miserable, skinny, short-lived slaves. And so is Africa and many places in South America.

But there is an enormous dilemma. It is how to maintain our agriculture in the face of cheap imports of food from elsewhere in the world.

There is a growing movement that we should ‘brexit’ from the UN. Trump has indicated that he wants to cut that cost. I do not blame him. The UN, and especially the WHO, has become a bloated parasite with very little to offer.

What needs to be done is to redefine the purpose of the UN. Cut it down to size. The same applies to the World Bank and the IMF. Amalgamate them all! Change their purpose into facilitation, which can be automated and computerised. They have no right to have POWER.

The EU has no right to have POWER. There should be no such thing as an EU Directive. ‘Best Practice’ can be defended, but ‘power’ cannot. There can be no place for Malta’s three votes to swing a decision adverse to the UK’s interests.

But that is what the EU means. Who knows what bribes are offered?

For the UK to prosper, a ‘bonfire’ of the quangos is needed. Cameron promised that but chickened out. That is why we need a Trump – a courageous PM who will clean the swamp of parasites in the first place, and then drain the swamp to ensure that the parasites cannot return.

The Universities need to be ‘regulated’. That is a horrible thing to say, but it is true. But I mean in terms of taxpayers’ input. Let them sink or swim if the offer courses in ‘female emancipation’. Government grants or loans will not be offered to students in such courses.

I feel that Government is beginning, slowly, to wise up. The way to cut costs without danger to the economy or public services is to cut out the myriad of small, wasteful drains on the public purse. ASH ET AL is only one of those small,wasteful drains.

Advertisements

The Disruption Caused By Ecigs

07/09/2017

For years and years, or even for decades, ‘Harm Reduction’ advocates have seethed at the antics of Tobacco Control. By definition, that ‘seething’ must also apply to the attitude of the WHO.

The only way that I can describe the attitude of the WHO is by describing it as the attitude of a Dictator, King, Emperor, Czar, etc.  But that attitude presumes total control, and that is what the WHO expected – over a long period of time. The WHO has no time limitations. It does not depend upon the same people being in charge. All that is required is that successors are of the same mind. And, ‘of the same mind’ means destruction of the tobacco industry and little else. That is the goal of the WHO. It really is as simple as that. If the tobacco industry is destroyed, then the public as a whole will cease to smoke cigs. Land used for growing tobacco plants will be restricted to Big Pharma, which might find real therapeutic values in the toxins inherent in the plant. After all, antibiotics are toxins.

Ecigs have seriously disrupted the plan.

There is a Motion before the UK Parliament at the moment which is going through the process, which demands that ecigs should be exempted from EU directives prior to Brexit. That means that the recent EU directive, in so far as it punished ecigs, is declared null and void in the UK.

Will it be passed? I doubt it, but only because it is contrary to the supremacy of EU directives. Politicians do not like ‘outliers’ (aka ‘outlaws’) buggering up their control. No doubt that there will be a three-line whip forcing Tories and Labour to vote against.

But that Motion indicates real concerns about what the EU bosses intend. Why was snus, a ‘tobacco product’ which did not involve burning tobacco, banned everywhere in the EU except Sweden, where it was popular? Would it not have been a good idea to promote snus, since the tobacco was not burnt, so as to reduce the tar?

I am glad that we are leaving the EU, regardless of economic or Customs effects. It is utterly corrupt. It should have been obvious to our Government that our contributions to the EU Empire would be misused. Why is it only now becoming apparent? But, even now, when the corruption is waving flags and parading about naked, our Government closes its eyes.

I doubt that the corruption would have been so visible if it were not for ecigs. It is no accident that the WHO, USA and EU attitude to ecigs in almost exactly the same. The people in control form a tiny elite, and they also control the money. The rest of the organisation is subservient. The employees are paid slaves.

Slavery is not just about physical status. It is also about subjugation of the spirit. If you regard ‘Lord This or That’ as superior to you, you have been captivated.

Ecigs have brought these anomalies into our ‘window’ of visibility. The mud from TC is beginning to drain away.

 

Revolution is Inevitable

06/09/2017

I do not know where to start.

The World Renowned expert on ‘tobacco harm reduction’, Carl Phillips, has excelled himself with a denunciation of the Federal Drugs Administration (FDA) decision to lower the nicotine content of ‘tobacco products’ (or is that just ‘cigarettes’?):

The War on Nicotine begins

I find it incredible that the newly appointed Trump head of the FDA, Dr Gotleib, can be so ignorant. Surely he must know that low nic cigs have been tried before, and that they failed miserably to be taken up by smokers? Who want to smoke fresh air?

Here are the facts. TobComs delivered low tar tobacco for the Canadian Gov. It was used in cigs. For some reason which might have seemed sensible at the time, TobComs called those cigs ‘lights’. ‘Lights’ meant ‘low tar’. Some time later, the Zealots started screaming that TobComs had ‘misled’ the public. Little was said about the part played by the Canadian Gov. In fact, by a constitutional trick, the Canadian Gov was absolved of any responsibility for encouraging low tar cigs. Note that we are talking about ‘low tar’ and not ‘low nicotine’. I am pretty sure that the ‘low tar’ tobacco plants are what produce tobacco today. I personally have noticed, over the years, that filter tips are nowhere near as brown as they used to be.

TobComs worry me. In the distant past, decades ago, they deliberately played down the possible dangers of smoking. Note the word ‘possible’. That exercise was not scientific but was marketing. If people want to smoke tobacco, then it is reasonable for TobComs to compete for the market by whatever means necessary. Thus, you got ‘doctors’, wearing thick, black glasses and white coats, extolling the virtues of ‘Capstan Full Strength’ and such. It is NOT reasonable believe the statements of the Surgeon General just because he says so. Does anyone believe that the Surgeon General’s reports were not politically orientated?; that ‘truth’ and ‘facts’ were not manipulated?

TobComs worry me because they do not support their billions of customers. It is as though their billions of customers were contained within an enormous ants’ nest. Every time that TobCom’s have gone to law, it has been to defend the profits of their companies, and not to finance the legitimate ‘human rights’ disputes brought up by individual customers. For example, publicans could have disputed that the Smoking Ban in England contravened their ‘human right’ to facilitate pleasure. We go to pubs for pleasure, and not just to absorb alcohol. In fact, I think that it is reasonable to say that we do NOT go to pubs to absorb alcohol at all  – we can do that at home. We go there for fun.

The collapse of Tobacco Control is inevitable. It is winding itself up into more and more contradictory spirals. The utter nonsense that Glantz has produced, which says that Tobcoms encouraged nicotine patches to addict smokers who were already addicted to nicotine, is beyond parody.

I had hoped that Trump would ‘clean the swamp’. Oh dear, that hope seems to have been too trusting. But there is still some hope. It is quite possible that Trump will get rid of Gotleib quite pronto. He should. Despite the ‘title’ Doctor, the fact is that Gotlieb is way out of his depth. He has shown himself to be a simplistic sucker. He came in fresh and was told to hit nicotine. He did not originate the idea. A sucker.

We should all know where these idea come from. It is from the WHO. It is a secret society. It may have public hearings from time to time, but the main discussions go on in secret. What we read and hear is the sanitised version of what is said and decided.

The horror, had we not voted to exit the EU, is that the subterfuge would have continued until we ordinary people became slaves for all intents. EU Directives cannot be repealed. They are written in stone.

The only way is a revolution, which is what Brexit is, without the violence. Brexit is akin to the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution.

All we can hope for is that not only business will be freed by Brexit, but that ordinary people will be freed from the tyranny of EU Directives. Remember that ‘ordinary people’ are the overwhelmingly important people in our land. Whatever their religion etc might be, their ‘comfort’ is the most important thing. They can believe that queers should be thrown off high buildings, provided that they do not do so.

America is impossible. I suspect that there are many different cultures, even in the white population, never mind the black population or the ‘coloured’ population.

It is unbelievable that there is so much concentration on smoking and hash or whatever. The fact is that the USA is not homogeneous. There are many different cultures.

For the legislators, ‘tobacco harm’ is a Godsend. It enables them to distract attention from from REAL iniquities or inequalities.

I wish that our PM and The Cabinet would address he idea of ‘Freedom’. They will not. They will only screw up the persecution. They cannot help themselves.

EXPECTED Consequences

05/09/2017

VGIF has today highlighted the unpreparedness of ‘the authorities’ for riots in prisons when smoking bans are introduced:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/send-ash-to-prison.html

He particularly draws attention to Arnott’s statement in ‘The New Scientists’ dated July 2015, in which she said, “The cultural change that has taken place everywhere else in society needs to be extended to prisons so that inmates and staff no longer have to put up with the harm caused by second-hand smoke. After it happens, just as with pubs and bars going smoke-free, we’ll all wonder what the fuss was about.

According to Arnott, smashed up urinals etc and other, even more costly destruction is ‘nothing to fuss about’.

THERE HAS BEEN NO CULTURAL CHANGE!!!! There has only been propaganda and the spread of hatred thereby. On the whole, the British people are as tolerant as ever. How could we live together in harmony, and in such close proximity, if that were not true? What Arnott et al have tried their best to do, is to destabilise our harmonious coexistence.

I suppose that ASH ET AL are even now advising Ministers that ‘it will all pass’; that smoking bans will be accepted. They may be right, but only in the sense that prison officers will turn a blind eye to tobacco imports, and, by extenuation, other substances. It follows as day follows night, that ‘turning a blind eye’ turns a blind eye to anything that is imported. ‘Turning a blind eye’ means not bothering to inspect packages and such.

But what is important for ASH ET AL is that a law has been passed. They do not give a toss whether the law is enforced or how much the enforcement will cost. If the cost of enforcement is a million pounds, and the cost of repairs from riots is ten million, ASH ET AL care not one jot. They have achieved their objective, which is another experimental ban. The imposition of a smoking ban in mental institutions is also an experiment.

The consequences of prison and mental institutions were expected. The intention was to measure the consequences. How bad were they? To what extent did they continue? What was the result of removing ‘trouble makers’? It was no accident that ‘trouble makers’ were moved to other jails. It was a deliberate plan.

The imperative is to get past Arnott. She is of no importance whatsoever. Absolutely none. ASH is of no importance at all. It is a noise, and nothing else. I find it terribly sad that people like Arnott, just whisperers in the ears of politicians, are tolerated at all. All their predictions turn out to be self-glorification. If what they predict turns out to be the opposite, they suffer no consequences. They just continue to absorb tax monies.

I think that the problem is that the tax monies are too small to be worth bothering about by The Exchequer. ASH ET AL get ‘spending money’. The only thing that will put ASH ET AL to sleep is lack of publicity. For ASH ET AL are just hot air. The studies that they claim to have instigated have been created by people other than Arnott and her 20 staff. ASH ET AL are ‘fake news’.

The prison riots were EXPECTED. I do not know if there were similar ‘riots’ among mental institute patients. The only thing that we have to go off is the treatment of Anna Raccoon in her final days before the cancer killed her. Not only was she deprived of a cigarette in her final few hours, but she was even deprived of the comfort of an ecig.

Such cruelty is unimaginable. Who decided that such cruelty was acceptable?

Is it not wonderful to turn the word ‘acceptable’ around and apply it to the actions of ‘unacceptable’ authorities?

Anna’s legacy must not be forgotten. She was a true heroine. But so also was Harleyrider, in his way.

Should we create a website of ‘Smoker Saints and Martyrs’? How could we do it? Perhaps Kate Moss would agree to be a ‘saint’. ‘Martyrs’ would not need approval. By martyrs, I do not mean people who have fallen off balconies and such. I mean people who have been subjected to MSM ridicule in accordance with EU demands for ‘celebrity trials’.

So I finish tonight with hope. My ‘hope’ is that politicians will realise that ASH ET AL is/are fraudulent. For example, that the pics on cig packets are not real depictions of the result of smoking. They are photos of someone with a condition, which might or might not have something to do with that individual smoking.

So the EXPECTED CONSEQUENCE is that more and more people will object.

Is that not precisely what Brexit is about?

Brexit Imperatives

04/09/2017

I distrust politicians. How can I not in view of the catastrophic Smoking Ban? Any politician who voted for the Smoking Ban must be intellectually corrupt. It is not surprising that those same people were found to be financially corrupt as the ‘expenses scandal’ showed.

But there was a tiny difference. On the face of it, corrupt politicians had nothing personally to gain for voting for Smoking Bans. But we do not know that for sure. Advancement (corruption) might have required complicity.

When we voted for Brexit, we voted to disconnect from The European UNION. What was the question again?

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

What are the important words in that question? There are only two. They are ‘European Union’.

It would be reasonable to say that the The People decided to exit the POLITICAL aspect of the EU, since the UNION was not about trade and such, but about the establishment of A STATE. A Union in the same sort of format as the USA.

Is the USA a ‘State’ which is similar to the EU ideal? I have reversed the thinking a bit. It may be that The Elite regard the European Union as superior to the USA system.

Brexit is not about trade. It is about POLITICS. The immediate consequence of Brexit should have been the termination of representation in the EU Parliament. That consequence should have been immediate. There is nothing to negotiate in that respect. So why are there still UK MEPs drawing vast salaries? Further, any UK apparatchiks involved in the ‘the Union’ should have been terminated.

What happened on 1st July 2007? The smoking Ban happened and smoking in pubs ceased totally. There were no exceptions. So why are there still MEPs amusing themselves in Brussels when THE PEOPLE have decided that they should not exist? MEPs should have been recalled immediately, or at least their salaries terminated.

But we then enter into a different scenario. ‘Who pays the salaries of MEPs?’ Is it the EU or the UK, as regards the UK’s MEPs? We do not know.

But we can go further. ALL UK POLITICAL agents attached to the EU should have ceased immediately after the decision to leave the EU, although there might have been some ‘hangovers’ which take some time.

I do not trust politicians since the Smoking Ban at all. I think that it is a pity that the lessons of the intellectual corruption of politicians displayed by the Smoking Ban, along with the Expenses Scandal, have not been learned.

I fear that our our ‘Negotiators’ have been strung up by their own political fears – that they are like maggots which want to chomp at a huge piece of cheese. They do not want the cheese to be removed.

The ‘Smoking Ban’ might have appeared to be just another ‘regulation’ to politicians, much like ‘driving on the left’. But it was not. It was a ‘Nazi’ imperative, as was shown by the encouragement of hatred of smokers.

The sad thing is that the perpetrators of the encouragement of hatred will get away with it.

Where are the EU ‘Directives’ against the hatred of smokers? There are none, just as there were no ‘verbotens’ against hatred of Jews in Nazi Germany.

The EU is as democratic as was Stalin’s Russia.

That is what we voted against.

Why Is There Not a Minister For “Freedom”?

03/09/2017

WW1 was probably the most destructive of all time. To make things worse, there was a massive epidemic of flu shortly after the end of WW1 which probably killed more people that the war itself. And to make things ever worse, Communism arose in Russia.

WW1 was said to be ‘the war to end all wars’. Stop giggling! WW2 was billed as a fight between ‘fascism’ and ‘freedom’. It is in that context that we must define ‘fascism’ – and ‘freedom’.

‘Fascism’ is about the imposition of authority be the State. The theory is not as bad as one might think. The term comes from the practice in Roman Times of the power of the Magistrates being represented by a bunch of sticks tied together into a bundle. Each stick was weak, but the bundle was strong. You could reasonably state that the bundle of sticks represented ‘the will of the people’, as personified by the Magistrates. What went wrong was that ‘the will of the people’ became ‘the will of the dictator’. Fascism gave The State absolute authority.

‘Freedom’ militated against that idea. The State must be limited to those matters which are ‘common’ to ALL citizens. You will note my emphasis on ALL. Thus, ‘Defence of the Realm’ affects everyone. Our roads affect everyone. Our hospitals affect everyone because none of us know when we will need them. To that extent, ‘freedom’ is limited in that everyone who can must contribute to their upkeep. You cannot opt out on the grounds of ‘freedom’.

Thing start to go very wrong when ‘freedom’ comes to mean ‘free from’. That is not freedom at all. It is the negative of real freedom, which is ‘free to’. In fact, it is reasonable to say that ‘free from’ is a contradiction. The word ‘From’ does not indicate any sort of ‘freedom’ at all. It suggests that ONLY that particular activity matters.

Prisoners are now FREE! Mental Patients are FREE! Nicotine patches are FREE! Housing is FREE!! In each case, the word ‘free’ means a different thing. The problem is amply illustrated by the two phrases ‘free alcohol’ and ‘alcohol free’.

Our politicians must begin to learn that there are totally opposite interpretations of ‘Health’. ‘Health’ is not necessarily that state of ‘well-being’ which the WHO says it is. For example, you will not see the word ‘contentment’ in the WHO documents.

You would think that politicians would realise the importance of Brexit and Trump, but most of them do not. I do not trust many of the UK’s negotiators. They do not see it. What we are sick to death of is DIRECTIVES. DIRECTIVES controlling every aspect of out lives, from the hoovers that we want to buy and use to the abominable ugliness of cigarette packets. THERE WILL BE NO END TO THESE INTERFERENCES UNTIL OUR POLITICIANS SAY “STOP”. 

And that is what Brexit is about. It is about imposed limitations of our freedom. ‘Free from’ is an imposition. Cameron et al did not understand. We do not want ‘free from’. We want ‘free to’. ‘Free from’ is fascism and communism. ‘Free to’ is civilisation.

So where is the Government Dept devoted to maintaining our ‘Freedom’, which our armed forces fought for in two world wars, to say nothing of Korea and many, many other conflicts?

One might be forgiven for imagining that the conflicts were not about freedom at all, but were just about different forms of servitude.

The Crux Is Coming

02/09/2017

I see the repeat emphasis on nicotine in the USA as a last throw of the dice. Jesus! I remember reading American comics when I was a kid, about 65 years ago, where there was a character called “Nick O’Tine”. That character was portrayed in much the same way that the Nazis portrayed Jews – skinny, hooked nose, narrow eyes and leering. The comic exhorted kids to beware of “Nick O’Teen” – a thoroughly evil person/thing who/which would gleefully steal everything you have to enrich itself. Needless to say, Nick O’Teen would never be satisfied with his ill-gotten gains. He would become exceedingly wealthy but would always remain skinny, hooked nosed, narrow eyed and leering.

“People smoke for the nicotine and die from the tar” is a famous quote. I do not accept that. I smoke for the pleasure. Am I addicted? Well, it all the depends upon the circumstances. I do not get up in the middle of the night, desperate for a cig. I used to find it difficult to not want a cig on a flight, but now I am not at all bothered.

It is the word ‘addiction’ which is the problem. How many times have we heard TC say that tobacco is more addictive than heroin? They are playing fast and loose with the word ‘addictive’.

The Crux is coming because TC and the FDA and the WHO are in a quandary. They have hit a contradiction. You cannot claim massive harm from smoking and reject the means to reduce that massive harm just because the means to reduce the massive harm has not been proven to be absolutely harmless in itself. Toxicology has shown that ecigs, snus, etc do not use combustion.

When did you last see TC mention the word ‘combustion’?

The trouble is that Tobacco Control wants to be in total control. The only narrative is TC’s narrative. The WHO hates ecigs, and yet it wanted to declare them to be medicines.

Does anyone see the contradiction there? Either ecigs are good enough to be medicines are they are so bad that they need to be banned. You cannot have it both ways.

I think that we are beginning to see a massive world-wide change. The EU regulations about vacuum cleaners are receiving widespread criticism, both on the ‘science’ and on the ‘virtue signalling’ as regards ‘Global Warming’.

What matters is to demolish the whole construct of ‘One World Government’, for that is where these ideas of controlling minute contributions to Global Warming come from. They are ‘experiments’ to see how far the idea can be pushed. I think that smoking bans in prisons and mental institutions are also experiments.

The UN reminds me of a concept in the Bank that I worked for. The concept was ‘Best Practice’. Well, that was fine, except that ‘best practice’ cannot be applied to individual situations. It is useless at that level.

Was it Hayek who said that the more that Government tries to control detail, the more that information becomes unreliable? Something like that.

I am not sure that President Trump can reverse the move to One World Government.  When you have Prime Ministers who sell out their countries, as Cameron wanted to do, you have to think that these people are existing in some sort of dream world where everything will be lovely.

Who knows how the crux will work out? Either ‘control’ will diminish or it will get worse.

Getting Desperate

01/09/2017

When I play chess against my electronic chess set, I am usually in reasonable control. I play it at a ‘moderate’ level. Sometimes, the machine comes up with moves which put me in a difficult position. I hate that machine. I want to smash it to pieces with a hammer. I get a little desperate because there is no way that that machine should beat me. Well, not at a ‘moderate’ level. I cast about with greater and greater urgency for a move that will defuse the situation. Sometimes I fail and lose.

It strikes me that Tobacco Control at the highest level is getting more and more desperate. At the highest level, say, in the WHO, the Zealots committed themselves to opposition to ecigs. They made that move. They were fully confident that that move was wonderful. It is easy to see why. By opposing ecigs, the WHO expected to ensure that Big Tobacco could not buy up ecig companies and continue its existence. Remember that the UN and the WHO regard tobacco plantations as wasted land which should properly be used for growing food.

But things are not working out for the WHO etc. Public Health England has come out on the side of ecigs, on the grounds that the substances which cause all the damage in tobacco do not exist in ecigs. Smoking tobacco is dangerous, but puffing on an ecig is not. Well, probably 99% less dangerous. Why is that so? Because what is being inhaled is as innocuous as the air we breath with every breath we take. The air that we breath is not ‘pure’. It contains all sorts of substances. Who knows how many millions of mould spores we inhale during the summer?

Do we remember the James Repace case where it was found that the non-smoking courtroom had a level of minute particulates just like the kitchen of the complainant? (Repace had found minute particulates in the kitchen of a person who was complaining about tobacco smoke drifting into his apartment).

Our bodies systematically destroy those spores.

But we also breath in vehicle exhaust fumes, some of which are said to be ‘carcinogenic’. When and how were those carcinogenic properties proven? They seem to me to be ‘articles of faith’. There is no proof.

I think sometimes that people like Glantz, Siegel and Bates are simply ‘opinionated’. It does not matter that they are ‘professors or doctors’ of this or that. Being ‘opinionated’ is a simple human trait. We do not like admitting that we are wrong.

So we are seeing a massive battle going on between ‘opinionated’ people.

It seems to me that the change of emphasis from ‘tar’ to ‘nicotine’ has been on the cards for ages. The word ‘addictive’ is the key.

But where is the proof that a mild ‘addiction’ is harmful to health? There is no such proof because ‘addiction’ is not, in itself, harmful. Some of us are addicted to tea, some to coffee, some to beer, some to whiskey, some to water. It is the human condition to like and want tastes and satisfaction. What is more satisfying than a good meal?

The whole catastrophic appointment of Gotlieb as head of the the FDA is clear beyond doubt. He knows bugger all and has immediately been lead astray.

Mr Trump? Please sack him without delay. He is a dupe. For it is OBVIOUS what the game is. The Controllers in the WHO have passed down their decision. The only way to destroy tobacco companies is to destroy nicotine.

Why are our politicians such dopes? Ireland intends to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol. The Junior Health Minister who claimed that it would be ‘a good thing’ was asked where she got her evidence from. Her dept quoted a couple of studies which showed no such thing. They were ambivalent. Were her advisers lying, or just lying?

But why did she get to that place at all? Who was forcing her?

We do not know what is going on. We do not know why Cameron suddenly changed his mind and permitted PP. Was that not a perfect example of ‘Getting Desperate’? Was his decision just a desperate move in some sort of grand game of chess?

 

Getting Things The Wrong Way Round

31/08/2017

I was reading VGIF this afternoon. Snowdon has written a piece about Anti-alcohol Zealots:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/alcohol-policy-in-real-world.html

He says that the Zealots have three commandments:

  1. Reduce availability.
  2. Increase prices.
  3. Stop product advertising.

The Zealots continue to push their commandments despite the fact that ‘studies have shown’ that the commandments do not work. That is, that, in the real world, over the past several decades, availability has increase, affordability has improved in terms of booze prices compared with increased earnings, and booze advertising has not decreased. Drinking has not increased as a result. In fact, drinking has significantly reduced.

The Zealots refuse to change their commandments. They are set in stone. They are COMMANDMENTS.

As an aside, one of the things that I observed on my last holiday in Mallorca was that hardly anyone had a bottle of wine with their evening meal. How would I know? The reason is that the staff seemed to be surprised when I called them over and asked for a bottle of wine. Not that long ago, the wine waiter was at your table almost before you sat down. There seems to be no specific wine waiter any more. Had I not gone out of my way to request a wine waiter, I would have eaten my meal without refreshment. I do not know if water was readily available free. But, having realised that fact, I looked around. I do not recall seeing any table with a wine bottle, either full or empty, on it. Customs seem to have changed rapidly. My point is that ‘availability’ has not changed. What has changed is ‘habits’.

It seems that the history of ‘civilisation’ is replete with ‘commandments’. In fact, the more that Nations become affluent, the more that ‘commandments’ take the place of ‘freedom’. It ought to be the other way round – education and wealth should create more freedom and not more regulation.

Speaking of ‘the other way round’, I was struck with this idea whilst reading Snowdon. It concerns 2. above – increase prices. Think about that. It is based upon the idea that, if you increase prices of booze, then you will price-out those who can least afford booze. That idea has proved to be a failure.

So why not turn it around? Why not reduce the incomes of ‘problem’ drinkers? Leave the prices alone and deplete the incomes of the groups of people most at risk? It ought to be really easy – reduce benefits and reduce the threshold at which people pay income tax. The same applies to tobacco, and possibly even more so. It is the poorest people who smoke most, so force their income down even further. Obvious, innit?

The interesting thing is that that would be more ‘just’. Those with the problem would suffer.

I cannot produce an equivalent regarding ‘availability’. I remember a time, decades ago, where there were ‘off-licences’ – shops which were dedicated to booze alone. There were no supermarkets then. There were only two accesses to booze – pubs etc and off-licences. If you wanted to have a party at home, you went to the off-licence shop. It strikes me that ‘alcohol availability’ cannot be changed in any realistic way. Well, apart from attacking breweries and demolishing them.

Advertising booze has been restricted voluntarily for some time. As I see it, booze adverts do not encourage drinking. They merely extol the virtues of their product. There was a cider advert on TV tonight. I forget the name, but it was not a usual product that you see advertised. It advertised itself as being different and ‘better’, and that is all. No quantities we stated.

Has the lack of advertising affected tobacco sales? Perhaps it has, but the most likely consequence has been to promote a near monopoly for Big Tobacco. In that case, TobComs can increase prices to increase their profits regardless of tobacco taxes. No wonder that TobComs contributed vast amounts of money to stopping imports of illicit tobacco!

TobComs are not friends of smokers. They are enemies. TobComs are not friends of Vapers. TobComs are THINGS. They neither have friends nor enemies. They simply exist. Is it any wonder that they have done NOTHING to defend the civil rights of smokers?

It is perfectly obvious that politicians have been seeing things the wrong way round for ages. In order to reduce booze, tobacco and food consumption amongst those most at risk, the incomes of those most at risk must be driven down. That’ll teach ’em!

And it is so easy! Reduce benefits in cash and replace them with food stamps!

It is coming. And it will also reduce Global Warming.

What Is The Ideal Age To Start Smoking?

30/08/2017

I started smoking when I was about 17. I cannot be accurate. I may have just turned 18. That was about 1957. I did not smoke much – only in the evening in company. Perhaps two or three cigs per day. I was a student at the time. Only when I started earning did my consumption increase. But that also was limited by constraints of the banking job and other things. We did not smoke on the till when serving the public, nor did we smoke during active work, even when not serving the public, nor did we smoke when working in the archives and such. Those restrictions did not need to be enforced by fines and Zealots. It was ‘not the done thing’. It was a bit like no-smoking on an aircraft today. It was not about safety but about appearances, apart from the archives, which were full of very inflammable paper.

Smoking has become ‘not the done thing’ on aircraft, but it was never about health. It is about appearances. In some ways, that is reasonable. Think of the smell of tobacco smoke. Or should I say ‘the aroma’? Funny, is it not?, that there are all these people on the aircraft who have doused themselves with stinking perfumes.

Stick to the point!

In today’s world, it would behove young people not to start smoking in their youth. Note that I do not say, “Never start smoking”. I say only ‘do not start smoking as a youth’.

But I have not defined the word ‘youth’. That lack of definition is a favourite of ASH ET AL. They much prefer the even more ill-defined phrase: “Young People”.

I have this idea that the the Zealots are partially right; that ‘young people’ should postpone the delights of smoking until they are ready for it. By all means suck lollipops, stuff your face with cakes, booze and shag, but delay the pleasure of smoking. I remember reading the memoirs of a native American (aka ‘red indian’ – I have forgotten her name) where she said that the young men did not smoke. Smoking was the preserve of the elders.

So let us envisage a scenario. ‘Young People’ do not smoke. They try this and that narcotic. Occasionally, one of them drops dead, but that is just an accident. The papers hype it up, but everyone knows that it is ‘a one-off’. And it is. Maybe the illicit drug was way to strong because there are no controls over quality.

So these ‘young people’ enjoy themselves. But they also work hard keeping fit and alert. They contribute massive taxes to support smoking old-age pensioners.

At around the age of 25, they link up male and female and have kids. They do not smoke and so are not ripped off by massive taxes. They prosper and, 15 years later, their kids are becoming more independent. They are now about 40. Both parents are now working and they are quite well off.

It is at that point that they can most appreciate smoking tobacco. The ‘delayed effect’ of tobacco harm is so delayed that they would be well deceased before they suffered the ill effects. They could enjoy the good effects for the rest of their lives without risk.

Is that not a wonderful scenario?

Generalising that idea, it would behove ‘young British people’ to get as rich as they can between the ages of 15 and and 40, start smoking around that age, and then move to Spain or some other civilised country. Leave Britain to the barbarians and immigrants. Under no circumstances cooperate with the State. The State has no morals or ethics at all. It can lie and cheat, and so can you.

If I said that I would not smoke if I was 25 now, I would be a liar. But I have no knowledge of the alternatives which are available today. Maybe I would be happy to enjoy a tablet and a pint to give me the courage to chat up a pretty girl. Maybe she would need a tablet and a gin and tonic to falsify reality in order to believe that I am handsome. Who knows?

My naivety is wonderful. The only time that I have experienced proper drugs was in Mallorca a few years ago. This big black guy asked me, on the street, if I would like some ‘Charlie’. I asked him what ‘Charlie’ was. I still do not know. He walked away.

I am happy and content to be a little old man who smokes and enjoys the benefits of smoking.

But I wish that I had not started smoking until I was 40. If I had delayed, then I would have been able to look forward to living to a ‘ripe old age’ of incontinence, senility and delirium.

In fact, this proves it.