Bolton Smokers Club

It is simple – ‘Diminishing Returns’. Look at this graph:

Disregard the impact of ecigs and look only at smoking prevalence. In the group of 18-19 year olds surveyed, smoking plunged by 54% for males and 64% for females between 2010 an 2015. I would not normally use words like ‘plunged’ because they are emotional words, and emotional words have no place in science. The word ‘decreased’ is scientific. But I feel justified in using the word ‘plunged’ because I just feel like indulging in a bit of devilry.

I would just like to make the point that the graph shows that male smoking in that group is down to 8% and female smoking in that group is down to 5%.

In the normal course of events in the world, efforts to reduce any sort of ‘prevalence’ hits a brick wall at some point. Thus, attempts to reduce smoking below the figures quoted above require more and more resources. It is easy to compress a gas to start with, but the more that you try to compress it, the greater the force you need. Eventually, you need AN INFINITE force which might just possibly compress the gas to some small volume.

I get lost a bit. But, essentially, that is the root of Einstein’s theories about Relativity. Even if you could create an INFINITE force, it would still take time for that force to have an effect. Thus, there would be a time lapse between the application of infinite force and the compression of the gas to zero volume.

Blah, blah. But you get the idea.

Why did prohibition of alcohol in the USA fail? Why did States which prohibited tobacco have to rescind those laws? Because prohibition – the reduction to zero – required infinite force. The costs of that infinite force are infinite. Why has the ‘war on drugs’ failed? For the same reason. Theresa May’s ‘war of psycho-active substances’ will fail for the same reason.

So what is the relatively less expensive alternative to FORCE? It can only be HONEST evaluation of risks and telling people the TRUTH.

And what is the worst thing that you can do? It is to use FORCE, since FORCE requires ENFORCERS, who cost a lot of money. Has the smoking ban in pubs been successful? Of course it has! Few smokers now go to pubs, and they do not stay long if they do. Thus, the State is paying for ENFORCERS which are no longer required. But there has been a time lapse. For years, ENFORCERS had to be paid until the need for them diminished.

But it goes on and on. If smoking bans in hospital grounds and on beaches become widespread, then the need to pay ENFORCERS would grow and grow. If such bans are not ENFORCED, then the law falls into disrepute, and can never recover from such disrepute. Recovery is not possible.

So we see that marginal taxes on a substance works for a while because the additional costs are light. But as the marginal taxes are increased, the BURDEN of enforcement rises exponentially.

Why do Governments not know about ‘exponential’? As the Australian Gov is experiencing, its costs in ENFORCING prohibitions of all kinds are rising and rising. But what is comical is that the enjoyment of tobacco ought to be the LEAST of Australia’s worries! If it is true that smokers die 10 years before non-smokers, then old age costs are reduced, so what is the problem? In the meantime, OZ has a MASSIVE AND COSTLY problem with illegal immigrants.

It is hard to know when ‘Common Sense’ will prevail over academic hair-splitting. It seems to be a long way off, but the election of Trump and Brexit suggest that the electorate is no longer prepared to accept ‘dictats’. For example, why should petrol be so expensive? Why is it ACCEPTED that petrol should be so expensive? Why, for years, have our elected representatives permitted petrol to be prohibitively expensive?

And so it come down to this: “What is the use of Parliament if its purpose is to rubber-stamp the edicts of the Elite?”

What my ruminations suggest is that the edicts of the Academics must be put under extreme scrutiny, and that Academics who transgress must be prosecuted, exposed and vilified. Such people should EARN their reputations.

I mentioned in last night’s post how a Zealot became hysterical when she was asked ‘whose children’ she was referring to when she demanded that ‘our’ children should be protected from SHS. The likes of ASH ET AL, and Arnott are very fond of manipulating words and phrases. For example, they might say, “We are worried that…” Who are the “WE”? It is likely that the “We” does not refer to the population at large, but to those people who rely upon people continuing to smoke to provide them with a continuing gravy train.

But there is an even more logically destructive phrase, which is, “There is a worry that…” I have seen that phrase used again and again. “There is a worry that ecigs might tempt youths to progress to smoking”. What we should be aware of is that the phrase “There is a worry that…” encourages the ‘Prevention Principle’.Damn it! the correct words will not come into my mind. It is the ‘just in case’ principle. What is the word?

The fact is that, generally speaking, there is no ‘worry’ at all. Worry is an emotion. No non-smoker actually worries about the fate of smokers.

That reminds me of the hysteria about the prevalence of homosexuality some decades ago. I remember thinking, “The more homos there are, the more girls there are available for me”. My thought was ‘disgusting, filthy, stinking’ – but it was true, sort of. The fact was that there were not many homos around, and, if there were, then they existed outside our normal heterosexual activities such as groping on the dance floor.

“There is a worry that….” is the idea that costs us all a fortune in taxes and preventative measures. Imagine the RAF in WW2 being denied the Spitfire because there was a ‘worry that…’!

All the blatantly  anti-science blather about ecig danger falls into the category of ‘worry that’ – emotion. But the emotion is fake. There are no realistic ‘worries’ in a scientific sense. There are no significant toxins or carcinogens in ecig liquids or their heated vapours.

I am a smoker, and I enjoy tobacco. I like to buy different tobaccos and experiment with blends. If ‘duty’ was demanded, I might well pay it – within reason.

I understand why the Zealots like Glantz and co hate the idea of ecigs. It is because ecigs have disrupted the UN, EU, FCTC, IPCC, One World Control.

Trump understands this. The simple ecig has thrown a spanner into the machine. Trump will build upon that to reconfigure the machine.

For be in no doubt that the UN in particular is a MACHINE.

Regular readers will recall that I have often wondered what motives the likes of Arnott, CEO of ASH. I find it very odd that a normal human being could accept the job of ‘Chief Flagellater’. For those who would describe themselves as ‘deplorables’, ‘flagellate’ means ‘whip’, preferably removing flesh in the whipping. Demanding more and more taxation of tobacco is just another form of ‘flagellation’. Cruelty is cruelty, no matter what form it takes. A fine might be less cruel than flagellation, but it is still cruel. Duty taxes are cruel, especially upon those who are poor.

I have wondered often how decent people, which could include Arnott, can possibly demand cruel impositions of taxes. How do their consciences cope with what they are demanding? “Increase taxes and thus force the poor to stop smoking”. That sentiment is shrouded by words like ‘help’.

But an idea popped into my mind tonight which might explain. It is that any exaggerations and lies are justified if they are ‘FOR THE CHILDREN’. In fact, TC has said so, again and again, in no uncertain terms, but we smokers simply do not see it. We do not see it because we are hung up by the horrors of smoking bans on ADULTS. As far as I know, there is no law in the UK which forbids ‘juveniles’ (under 16) from smoking. Only supplying such ‘children’ is criminal.

So, perhaps, we can see what drives the Zealots, and what justifies all the exaggerations and lies. They intend to SAVE the children, and that objective is so important that nothing else matters. Logic, ethics, science, etc, are irrelevant. “The Children” have to be saved from a life of addiction to nicotine. Arnott and Co can justify, in their own minds, ANY persecution of smokers – for the sake of ‘the children’. Thus, they can lie by saying that they only want increased taxes on the poorest people to ‘save the children’.

But that rationalisation falls apart when the shit hits the fan. And the shit hits the fan when someone says, “WHOSE CHILDREN?”

I remember a ‘phone-in’ radio program when a female Zealot was talking about how ‘children’ needed to be protected against SHS, or something similar. Someone rang in and asked, “WHOSE CHILDREN are you talking about?” The Zealot poo-pooed, but the caller insisted, “WHOSE CHILDREN are you talking about?” And then the Zealot asked the caller if he had children. The caller refused to answer. He said, “WHOSE CHILDREN are you talking about?” The Zealot became hysterical. The bluff had been called and found wanting.

Tobacco Control has no rights whatsoever over children. Parents have duties, as is recognised by law, in the sense of caring for them and ensuring that they go to school. It is in no way acceptable for the State, and especially groups like ASH ET AL, to dictate.

But the depths of childish brainwashing have yet to be plumbed. Nazi Germany plumbed the depths, and so did Soviet Russia. It is incredible to me that The State, post WW2 and the collapse of Communism, can wish to emulate those cruel and vindictive decades.

For heaven’s sake! Parents love their children. ASH ET AL do not love any child at all. They USE a child.

Is it possible they “do not know what they do?” NO!! They know exactly ‘what they do’. But they have a ‘cognitive dissonance’, in that they lack humility. They ascend the heights of ‘the moral high ground’ and worship themselves. Meanwhile, back on the ground, parents love their children and do their best. TC does not LOVE children. It controls them, and/or uses them.

I hope that Trump calls out all the epidemiological crap and demands ‘proof’. The latest excretion, as dissected here:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/new-study-concludes-that-vaping-is-one.html

shows, without doubt, that the Zealots have no qualms about using ‘correlation’ as ‘causation’.

There is massive panic in TC. The gravy train is slowing down.

So what is the answer? I do not know. The answer must, eventually revolve around the extent of ‘risk’ and its amplitude. Is swimming in the sea dangerous, and how dangerous is it, and how many people swim in the sea?

Lots of children swim in the sea, but it is dangerous. And the more that they swim in the sea, the more likely that they will drown. Some children, who swim in the sea, drown, and therefore ALL children must be forbidden from swimming in the sea. Even paddling is likely to produce some drownings. THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL!

A short post tonight.

The phone rang this afternoon. “Hello”, I said. “I am calling from Dr C’s practice. Can I speak to J… W….?” “You are speaking to him”, I reply. “Dr C wants to update your records. Can I ask you if you are still smoking?”,  asks Ms X. I laugh. “Of course I am. But I am not into heroin or stuff like that” She giggles. “How much do you smoke?”, asks Ms X. “Oh, I don’t know. Maybe 40 a day” “So there is no change?”, she asks. “I suppose not”, I reply.

“Do you have any intention to quit?”, she asks. I laugh. “Of course not. Damn it, I’m 77 years old. What would be the point?”

And then she says, “Dr C would like you to come into the surgery for a blood pressure test. Can we arrange an appointment?” “Erm”, says I, “I think that I would rather not”. “OK”, she replies and rings off.

Thereby hangs a tale. A year or so ago, Dr C invited me to attend for a blood pressure check. I obeyed and the Practice Nurse questioned me beforehand about my lifestyle. Yes, I smoke a lot; Yes, I drink lots of alcohol. And then she took my blood pressure. Is it surprising that it was ‘higher than normal’ for a 77 year old? For a start, I did not want a blood pressure test, but thought that it might be ‘useful’. But I did not anticipate intrusive questions about my life-style. What could be worse for your blood pressure than intrusive and annoying questions? Weirdly, the Nurse said that there was no reason for 77 year-olds to have a higher blood pressure than youths. That might be true, for all I know.

But, as has been the case with smoking, the effects of a slight rise in blood pressure, which might seem huge on a given scale, might be insignificant in reality. Thus, medicines to reduce blood pressure might kill the patient.

I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW! Leave me alone. Do not put problems into my mind. I am ‘fit’ for my age, both physically and mentally. Leave me alone.

Smokers have no CHAMPION. Maybe such a person will emerge in due course. And it is so simple.

What have old people been dying from in the last several decades since tobacco advertising was banned? The vast majority die from the same illnesses – the failure of a major organ, such as the heart, or the lungs, or the kidneys, or the liver, or the brain, or the ……

The circumstance is known as FATE.

One of my favourite sites is:

http://theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/why-should-i-believe-left-are.html

The owner of the site is Simon Cooke, a Tory councillor in Bradford. He posts a lot, but rarely responds to comments, if ever. His voice is drowned in the Bradford council because the ‘leftists’ hold far more seats. But he tries his best to be rational.

I want to quote something from his latest post:

Yet the left remains astonishingly unaware of it’s problems or of the extent to which it is trapped. Here’s Nick Cohen presenting that unawareness as a considered position:

Compulsive liars shouldn’t frighten you. They can harm no one, if no one listens to them. Compulsive believers, on the other hand: they should terrify you. Believers are the liars’ enablers. Their votes give the demagogue his power. Their trust turns the charlatan into the president. Their credulity ensures that the propaganda of half-calculating and half-mad fanatics has the power to change the world.

How you see the believers determines how you fight them and seek to protect liberal society from its enemies.

I have only glanced at the Nick Cohen article, but why should I do otherwise? Who the hell is ‘Nick Cohen’?

But I empathised with the above sentences. What shocked me was the following text did not talk about the ‘compulsive believers’ but talked about the ‘liars’, and Trump was the arch liar. Not one word was said about the liar, ‘Clinton’, as far as I could see.

But it was hard to see why the article started with a ‘universal truth’, “Compulsive believers, on the other hand: they should terrify you.“, but went on to talk almost exclusively about ‘the lies’ of Trump.

What struck me about the Cohen statement was that it was not the lies which were important; it was the belief in the lies which was important.

It is hard to know when BELIEF in Tobacco Control lies took off. It was not the lies which were important, it was the BELIEF.

We all accept that the Earth is spinning. Why? It is not just that we have been told so by ‘Experts’. It is because that idea makes sense. It explains why the celestial bodies seem to all go in the same direction across the sky, and explains sunrise and sunset. No one with any intelligence would deny it. And yet, a few centuries ago, in an age of ‘enlightenment’, Galileo was placed under house arrest for saying just that.

For several decades, Tobacco Control have been saying that the Sun revolves around the Earth every day. The Sun is in orbit around the Earth. Tobacco causes lung cancer etc.

How was that proven to be true? It has NEVER been proven to be true, as the McTear Case (see sidebar) showed. That smoking tobacco causes LC is a BELIEF.

Imagine what would happen if smoking tobacco ceased to exist. There would still be people dying from LC, in which case some other ’cause’ would have to be found, and tobacco smoking as a cause would have to be relegated to ancient magic.

What seems to me to be important is that our elected representatives must NOT be committed to the usual parties. Those days are gone. Slogans are yesterday. A politician who votes for smoking bans and their extensions, votes for PERSECUTION.

Smokers have been persecuted for years and years, as have drinkers and drivers. What is all this shit about the EU fining the North of Ireland if people from the South venture into the North to buy cheaper cigs? Or, just a minute, is it the South which will be fined by Junker? I am getting a bit lost. Everything has become surreal. I am sure that Antony Gormley could paint a surreal picture of TC.

So, what is important, for us smokers, is to emphasise the PERSECUTION. The lies are not that important. It is the PERSECUTION that is important. In other words, whether smokers are killing themselves is not what matters. It is the PERSECUTION which matters.

That idea calls into question the whole idea of ‘Health Control’, in the sense that ‘health control’ can only be effected by FORCE. In fact, is it not true that Tobacco Control is all about FORCE? How on Earth did our Gov in the UK come to BELIEVE in the superstition of tobacco harm, and the need to use FORCE to satisfy the ‘Experts’, and hand them loads of money?

But Public Health England have loads of new projects in hand. They want to ban, or tax, EVERYTHING with the slightest HEALTH risk. Thus, football is a Health Risk, and should be taxed. The construction of any football, or anything which could be construed as being a football, attracts a tax, even if that ‘football’ is a balloon, since it could be ‘kicked about’ and cause injury.

What seems to me to be evident is that BELIEF begets PERSECUTION.

I do not know, and I doubt that it is knowable, why substances such as tobacco, alcohol, petrol, are picked out as being ‘special’. It is almost as if there was a reverse ‘racism’ and ‘hate crime’. It would possibly be comprehensible if the ‘special’ taxation was intended to ruin the economy of an enemy Nation, or a rebellious colony, but, in a civilised nation, there is no excuse. It can only be PERSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT.

I see that the Greek financial problem is rearing up again. It seems that the Greek Government is likely to welch on its debt repayments, and is likely to need another bail-out to pay off the previous bail-out.

So what precisely is the situation? I do not know because the details of the bail-outs are never clearly explained. So let me imagine the situation.

The Greek Gov is, say, paying out more in pensions and other benefits, than it can afford, simply because taxation is not bringing in enough revenue. But, politically, reducing pensions is a hot potato. Because the Greek economy is a basket-case, no one wants to buy its Government bonds, despite high interest rates. It cannot devalue its currency (which would mean that anyone holding Greek currency would take a ‘haircut’) since it is in the Eurozone, so it goes to the EU Central Bank and asks it to buy its bonds. There is much tutting and the IMF and World Bank join in. Between them, the EU CB, IMF and World Bank come up with a plan. The plan requires austerity (and smoking bans).  [We must bear in mind that the big noises in the World Bank and IMF are the Americans] The new Greek Government fears, rightly, total economic collapse, and quietly agrees to reduce its pension and benefits hand-outs, and hopes for the best. But nothing changes and the economy continues to go downhill. Of course, the reduced pensions and benefits reduce demand which reduces supply, which reduce tax income. And so, a year or whatever later, nothing has changed. The Greek Gov cannot buy back its bonds. It asks the EU CB, IMF and World Bank to accept new bonds to replace the old bonds. The EU CB, IMF and World Bank demand even more austerity (and more smoking bans) and the Greek Gov MUST agree to avoid economic collapse.

What would economic collapse mean? I do not know, but I can guess. Remember that Greece cannot decide to print Euros, so it would be unable to pay salaries, pensions, etc. The recipients of the salaries, pensions, etc, would not be able to buy anything, other than by raiding the bank accounts. But banks do not have a bottomless pit of euros, so they have to close their doors and disable their cash machines. People stop paying their mortgages and personal loans, and no one buys cars, etc . In effect, THERE IS WARFARE! Government totally collapses. No one goes to work unless the get paid ‘in kind’. “I shall do a day’s work for you provided that you pay me a pound of potatoes, half a pound of lamb, etc, and I must see the provisions before I start work” And, for a country like Greece, the tourists stay away.

You cannot blame the Greek Gov for trying to avoid such a total catastrophe.

But how about this? Suppose that the Greek Gov had learnt from the last bail-out and, secretly, printed billions of drachma – as much as is needed. Suppose that it decided to ‘call-in’ the Euros and replaced them with drachma. It could then repay its bonds with the collected euros. The EU CB, IMF and World Bank (aka America and Germany) would have to put up with their losses.

I cannot think of any alternative. Greece would have to ‘start over’. That is not unusual since most Nations of Europe had to ‘start over’ after WW1 and WW2. But that does not mean that its People must live in poverty. For most of the year, countries like Greece are nice a warm. They do not need central heating or artificial ventilation, other than a small fan occasionally. Lots of activities in their bars and cafes take place outdoors. A couple of years ago, I visited Malaga, but I stayed in a university hotel which normally housed students. The facilities were very basic, but OK for a guy on his own. Meals were basic, in the Spanish style – mostly bread, butter and coffee for breakfast, plus fruit. But they also provided some egg and bacon, if you preferred. The hotel did not do lunch, but it provided an evening meal, if you wanted it. It was not exactly a banquet, but it was OK. Personally, I preferred to visit a local pub and dine there. One night, I forgot to pay, and the waiter chased after me. I must have been at least 100 yards away before he caught up with me. “Veiente”, he cried. “Oh, SORRY, REALLY SORRY, here you are”, I responded, and gave him my €20 note.

But even that small community on the outskirts of Malaga had its den of evil. One night, on my way back to the hotel, I noticed a bar with a bouncer outside. I had had a couple of beers and felt brave. So I asked the bouncer if an Englishman was allowed inside. I think that I used a bit of English and a bit of Spanish and a bit of French. Like, “Por favor, Ingles, entree?” So they let me in. It was about 11pm, but I must have been early, because there was no one in except prostitutes.  I fled immediately. Not that I have anything against prostitutes. On the contrary, prostitutes are very amusing, and not always uneducated. I fled because I know that they tempt you…….

What have such reminiscences to do with Greek insolvency? It is that the Greek People do not know how lucky they are. Or perhaps they do, but do not think that it is important. But it IS important. They are lucky enough not to freeze. Here in England, I have had the central heating on continuously since the beginning of December. If I did not, then we would all have to wear woolly jumpers and overcoats IN THE HOUSE! When I was in the RAF in Cyprus, the winter months simply meant more rain. The difference between winter and summer was that summer was hotter, and not that winter was horribly cold. Winter was pleasantly warm, for the most part.

The EU could have been wonderful. In fact, for a few years, it was wonderful. Perhaps the fact that it was wonderful, and free, allowed the influx of ‘controllers’ and ‘prohibitionists’. The same could be said of the UN and the WHO. It always seems to be the same – ‘good intentions’ seem always to be replaced by ‘coercion and lies’.

Brexit must mean more than disconnection with the present set-up of Communist Europe. It must mean an ongoing conflict of ideas.

WE ENGLISH PEOPLE WANT RECOGNITION. It is about time that, in contrast with Scots, etc, the ENGLISH people have just as much authority.

But the whole Scottish independence thing is wonderful, from an English point of view. Scotland costs England a lot of money. So let The Crankie demand Independence, and, as proof of her demand, refuse to accept the English subsidy.

I think that my last paragraph above describes precisely the ‘cognitive dissonance’.

The EU is breaking, and it is terribly sad. The problem is the use of FORCE. Given time, the Nations of Europe would have found ways to cooperate with free trade and sharing of resources. But, “NO!!” ZEALOTS OF ALL KINDS BUGGER THE THING UP. I do not understand how these Zealots, like the Medical Mafia, get inside. It can only be because politicians fail in their duty, which is to STOP one section of the populace persecuting and stealing from another section. That is what Government exists for. It does not exist to decide which side of the road we should drive on. Such things are common sense.

The EU is breaking because it is a mirror of Soviet Russia.

Read the ‘Gulag Archipelago’.

There are words which we all thought that we understood to meaning of, roughly. The word ‘roughly’ is important. For example, the word ‘epidemic’ meant ‘widespread contagion of some disease’. That is, that a ‘disease’ spreads from person to person, or by some other means, and infects more and more people in an ever multiplying way. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc.

How then can ‘tobacco’, dried leaves, be described as an ‘epidemic’? It can only be so described if tobacco itself is a ‘disease’.

The chief distorters of our language are Zealots. But not the type of Zealot who caused Prohibition of alcohol in the USA around 19oo. At that time, the Zealots did not need to distort the meaning of words. They simply announced that alcohol was evil.

What seems to me to be happening immediately in the Trump era is that words are reverting to their original meanings. Thus, the word ‘immigrant’ describes a person who wishes to INVADE AND TAKE OVER another country.

Clearly, such ideas are not tenable in all cases, but might be so in some circumstances.

But what I see as very, very important is that we smokers, or anyone interested in ‘TRUTH’, must stop using Zealot language. There are no ‘nicotine addicts’, any more than there are ‘caffeine addicts’.

But, again, the recognised idea of ‘addiction’ had to be ‘redefined’ to exclude illnesses caused by withdrawal.

The terminology of ‘illnesses’ has been distorted exponentially to the extent that Governments DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORDS.

For example, the smoking ban in pubs and clubs was determine by the damage and danger likely to occur to bar staff. There was no reasonable evidence of such damage or danger. But Government misunderstood the meaning of the word ‘RISK’. Thus, our truly democratic Government has decided that ‘there is a ‘RISK’ that imports of the agricultural product, dried tobacco plant leaves, might be used to evade duty taxes.

None of those arguments matter at all. What is of THE GREATEST IMPORTANCE is the human right to be self-sufficient if possible.

These things become clear once you cut through the blathering words of TC.

Let us try to reverse the misleading use of words. There is no ‘epidemic’ or ‘pandemic’ of smoking. But there is ‘world-wide’ pleasure derived from the simple puffing on a cigarette

The following is a very good article about the ecig situation in Oz:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/quitting-smoking-made-me-a-criminal/news-story/95511dbe56afc60af77c04b1cebbd549

I have to assume that the author is a journalist working for News.com.au. When he wrote the article, the authorities were still discussing whether or not to repeal the ban on nicotine in ecig liquids. He describes his own experiences of using ecig liquid containing nicotine, and how it worked for him. He castigates the authorities for the utterly, utterly illogical position in banning ecig liquids which contain nicotine, whilst doing nothing to ban cigs which contain nicotine and, in his view, cause death via the smoke and not the nicotine.

The first few sentences read:

WHEN I quit smoking last year, I got a message from Associate Professor Colin Mendelsohn from the School of Public Health at the University of NSW.
“Congratulations,” he said. “You’ve just added almost 10 years to your life.”
He then added: “You’re also now a criminal.”
Today the Australian Government will decide whether I will remain one, and whether 2.6 million other Australians will get the chance to potentially save their lives.
My crime was to quit the only way I knew I could: By replacing a real cigarette with an e-cigarette that delivered the nicotine without virtually all of the stuff that actually kills you.
That practice is currently illegal. The Therapeutic Goods Administration will announce today whether that should change or not. 

the kick is in the last sentence:

UPDATE: Shortly after midday the TGA released its decision and Dr Mendelsohn sent me another message. “Hi Joe,” he said. “You are still a criminal.”

The proposal to permit nicotine in ecig liquids had been rejected.

What I like about these incidents ‘down under’ is that they reveal, in no uncertain terms, the severe limitations of Government. It makes one wonder if both WW1 and WW2 could have been avoided had not the Governments of the time been less cautious. That sounds like, and is, a sort of ‘double negative’. You might say: “Governments should be very cautious about declaring war”. Obviously, you would be right. But you might also ask: “Should Governments have been less concerned about fulfilling Treaty obligations which would lead to a continental conflagration?” In other words, throw caution to the winds and refuse to implement Treaty obligations which were intended to deter, but not actually intended to produce World War.

WW2 was initiated by the German invasion of Poland. The UK and France had a Treaty with Poland to defend Poland. God only know why. Had Germany first invaded France, would Poland have declared war on Germany? We do not know. I would suggest, probably not.

So, you might reasonably say ‘CAUTION’ was the cause of both wars.

So let us think about what has happened in the recent past. The USA invaded Iraq not because of some Treaty, but because of it threw caution to the winds and just ACTED. There is no such thing as ‘international law’, unless a very strong nation decides that there is. Who is going to be first to declare war on Russia because of the annexation of the Crimea? The USA invaded Iraq. It did not declare war on Iraq. It avenged 9/11. But it made terrible mistakes. It purged the Iraq Government of Bathists as though they were Nazis. They were not Nazis – they were people who had to be Bathists to have their jobs. Thus, the Yanks removed all the people who were skilled in organising local authorities. Is it any wonder that chaos ensued?

There is chaos in Oz. To get a job in ‘Health’ you have to be a fully-paid-up member of the ‘Healthist Party’. At the top of Public Health England, you have no chance of securing a position unless you have a record of published, anti-tobacco papers. For example, suppose that two people apply for a position which requires knowledge of pneumonia. Suppose that one applicant has years of dealing with pneumonia on the ground, but the other applicant has several published papers about pneumonia. Which of them would get the job?

So we go back to the heading. WHO decided to continue the ban on nicotine containing e-liquids? What makes things even worse is that Ausies can legally buy and import such liquids from New Zealand, which permits such liquids. I suppose that that is because OZ has some sort of trade agreement with NZ.

Is it possible to conceive of anything more illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, pathetic, etc, than that GOVERNMENT edict?

But does such nonsense go deeper? I think that it does. It goes deep into the anti-tobacco movement which has existed since the late 1880s. And the basic premise is still the same – tobacco is EVIL! And that argument applies just as powerfully to sugar, salt, etc. But note how salt has been degraded. It is now not a ‘feature product’ for Health Zealots.

So let us envisage a post-Brexit Government.

The UK Government frees its People from vastly complex taxation regs. The Inland Revenue is separated from politics. If you earn, you must pay income tax, but it does not matter HOW you earn.

I could go on all night, but I am tired. But what I have proposed, makes a lot of sense. But the ideas need to be strengthened and supported. I do not have such expertise. Some countries in the EU have vastly simplified their taxation systems.

So suppose that Theresa May ignores the demands of the anti-tobacco zealots and concentrates upon Brexit. I mean, even May must be sick to death of Zealots.

Defund their ‘Charities’ and let them sink or swim. It is so simple.

Weird, is it not, that there seems to be no such thing as a ‘human right’ to just live as you wish. I am talking about INDIVIDUALS. Thus, a person who wishes to live as a hermit and live in a hole in the ground in a forest, MAY get away with it, but a person who wishes get by as best he can, in his own way, is stymied at every turn.

I do admire the gypsies. Weird though it might appear to be, we in the UK still have gypsies who exist beneath the radar. They do not have National Insurance Numbers. They live on what they can scrounge. For example, I have been told that if I leave a metallic object, being a bicycle or a washing machine, outside my house, but on my property, it will disappear after a day or two. That is because gypsies roam around looking for such things.

So the ‘human right’ works simply. I exhibit my metallic junk outside and the gypsies carry it off and trade the metal in for cash. We both gain – I get rid of my junk, and the gypsies do the work of transportation and disassembly and gain money thereby.

I do not know how the ‘gypsy thing’ works, but it seems that many other people know. A neighbour said to me, “Just leave it on the drive (whatever it was). The gypsies will take it away”. Only tonight, I walked to the pub and saw a bicycle left blatantly at the end of a drive, right near the pavement.

Some years ago, we used to get notes pushed through our letter boxes on our estate. I think that our estate was chosen because it is a matte of fact that our estate is comparatively well-off. The notes pushed through our letter boxes were not just from Oxfam and such, but were also from junk dealers.

Apart from Oxfam begging, and similar, the notes from junk collectors no longer appear. And yet, it seems that if you leave metallic junk outside, it will disappear via the gypsies.

‘CONTROLLERS’ hate that. In fact, underlying they way that we live, is a cruel and despotic idea, which is that no one must be permitted to deal in junk. Junk must be declared to be ‘anathema’, to be dealt with only be expensive operators in space suits, at enormous expense.

Trump is attacking the obvious need of the USA to remove Zealots. I cannot understand why that need has not been seen before. Health Zealots are just as bad as Religious Zealots who caused Prohibition. But at least Religious Zealots had The Almighty on their side. The Health Zealots can only appeal to Mamon – Money.

The idea of self-sufficiency imbues ALL our civilisation. Only because of ‘self-sufficiency’ can the needful be cared for.

I watched Theresa May’s speech in Philadelphia today courtesy of:

https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2017/01/31/uncomfortable-hand-holding/

I do not deny that it was a good speech in that it outlined the many ways that the USA and Britain have cooperated, over the decades, to fight for freedom, humanity and democracy. Many battles have been fought, and many lives of our soldiers have been lost in those fights.

And yet, at the same time, we have seen in the UK, during the time that May has been an MP, a cruel and vindictive persecution of people who enjoy tobacco. Here is a typical example:

“It is necessary to put up tobacco taxes to put tobacco products out of the reach of children”.

What is wrong with that statement? Well, for a start, traders are not permitted to sell cigs to children. Oh, and at the same time ‘a child’ has been redefined to include what are defined in law as ‘minors’. Clever, that. In law, the word ‘minor’ means a person who is not old enough to be responsible. The precise age has varied, but is generally recognised to be sixteen. we must be careful to recognise that a youth of 16 is ‘responsible’ – a 15 year old is not.

So the age at which a person can buy tobacco products has been raised beyond the point where they are legally ‘minors’.

I don’t know if it has happened yet in the USA, but there have definitely been moves to increase the age at which a person can buy tobacco products to 21. Some States have already increased the age at which a person can buy alcoholic beverages to 21. And yet ‘kids’ of 17 or so can join the military and get shot or blown up. If you are old enough to operate a weapon, then you MUST be old enough to buy alcoholic beverages.

But the implications of ‘age-related’ bans go much further. They direct youths to more dangerous products. If you are a youth of 19 and are banned from buying cigs, then you might very easily be tempted into trying  much more dangerous substances HERE AND NOW! That seems to have been what happened at Harrow public school. Young students there were tempted to try ecstasy tablets – rather more dangerous than a cig behind the bike sheds. Why does no one point the finger, AT ALL, at tobacco control? It is as though TC is whiter than white. No persecution which it proposes is contrary to ‘Human Rights’.

And that association with ‘human rights’ is what intrigues me. May, in her speech, referred to human rights, but, at the same time, she and her kind, are quite happy to persecute around 25% of the adult population of the UK.

Trump may not address the persecution of smokers in the near term, but if he is to be true to his ideals, he must not only address the problem of the international IPCC (UN climate control), but also the UN FCTC (tobacco control).

And the reasoning is quite simple. The USA must make it clear that IT will decide what is good for its citizens and not the UN.

The UN has a role to play, just as it did after WW2. That role was to encourage discussion and agreements such as the reduction in atomic weapons. It was not to impose restrictions on pleasurable activities of the billions of people in the world.

Theresa May extolled the cooperation of the USA and Britain to maintain freedom, but, at the same time, she permits the funding of blatantly prohibitive actions. What else, other than ‘prohibitive action’ is the requirement to get permission to trade in a ‘free trade’ agricultural product’?

The REAL, BIG problem is that politicians have forgotten what ‘freedom’ means. They think that ‘freedom’ means freedom to obey laws.

I doubt it, but I hope that May and Trump know that Freedom means NOT being DICTATED to.

If we think of the IPCC. It was deliberately set up with Global Warmists. It researches were directed to the possible warming caused by CO2. But it totally ignored the benefits to plants of increased CO2.

Another video which I watched was this:

Myron (?) Ebell was appointed by Trump to manage the transition and make suggestions about how Trump could fulfil his promises. His job was not a permanent job. He did what his job required and then stepped down. But what is important is how calmly he dealt with questions.

But my point to night is to emphasise how hypocritical it is to extol defence of ‘freedom’ whilst permitting the destruction of ‘freedom’. What is even worse is that there are people in Gov Department who are dedicated to advancing the interests of globalists – tobacco control, alcohol control, obesity control, salt control, sugar control, toast control, etc.

They need to be swept away. Academics can be funded to do research and show their results, but they have no right to decree what Government should do. Others, such as philosophers, should make suggestions.

You see, philosophers see that most people recognise that their own pleasurable desires must be tempered by cooperation with their neighbours.  They do not raid each other’s orchards or steal each other’s sheep. Sure, in a lawful society, stealing is penalised by fines and imprisonment, which is reasonable.

But TC has somehow poisoned Society.

Theresa May painted a picture of ‘Freedom’, but she simultaneously permits cruelty, prohibition, propaganda, torture, deprivation, fines and taxes, deliberately aimed at the 25% of adults in the UK who enjoy tobacco.

So, much as I would like to applaud, I cannot do so. The latest persecution, the virtual ban on trading in ‘tobacco plant waste’ via the need for permits to hold or transport such ‘waste’, is typical. Dead and rotting plant leaves need to be regulated.

The mind boggles at how the PM can call to mind the sacrifices of American and British lives for freedom, and, at the same time, harass, fine, persecute, torture, smokers, who just want to be left alone.

So, we smokers can strive to overturn the whole ‘perception’. We are not ‘CASH COWS’. We absolutely refuse to pay any more tax than non-smokers. And that applies also to alcohol and petrol.

Is Theresa May the UK’s Trump? She could be, but I doubt that she has the courage to dismiss all the doom-mongers. Those people must be rooted out and dismissed. They should be replaced with people who have HOPE!