Bring It On

From Chris Snowdon:

In New Zealand, a group of ‘public health doctors’ have formed an organisation called Fizz which is seeking the outright prohibition of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs).

I’m looking forward to all these new prohibitions.

It’s been us smokers who have been the guinea pigs on which most of the experimentation has been done. Now it’s everybody else’s turn to get the same treatment.

Maybe some of them will at last start to notice their freedoms being taken away?

Or maybe they won’t?

I’ll be delighted to see wine bottle labels covered in pictures of bloated livers, and vomit, and car crash victims. And chocolate boxes coated with images of super-obesity. And meat products wrapped in bloody images of cattle being slaughtered.

I won’t feel quite so much on my own.

But as demand for more or less everything dries up, and everyone stays home and stops spending, I reckon the economy will completely collapse.

And maybe that’s what they want too?

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Bring It On

  1. I’ve always been disappointed that PETA has shown so little backbone in emulating the Antis. Wandering around in supermarkets putting tobacco style warnings and pictures on fatty/sugary/meaty foods would get them tons of publicity and be quite helpful to us on the side.

    Ahh wellll…

    :/
    MJM

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    But Frank those people are defenseless,they have no ability to fight back…………

    Wait we didn’t either but will big food make a deal and abandon their customers to the food Nazis like the big tobacco companies did to us!

    I say bring it on also…………the more victims the bigger our army!

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    I just heard Yellen at the FED is talking raising interest rates now! It means they know they printed to much money and it begins……….

  4. LOL! No, the MJM in the following link is *NOT* me, but he provides a wonderful example of the need for warning the public of unknown dangers inherent in their consumables.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-08/mjm-as-personified-evil-says-spyware-saves-lives-not-kills-them.html

    ” Robert Partridge, points to a glass bottle of Coca- Cola in the middle of a table in the company’s conference room. Carbonated beverages, he explains, could be very painful when poured in the noses of interrogation subjects who have been turned upside down.”

    Nasty stuff! Hope they keep it out of reach of children under 21!

    – MJM

  5. jaxthefirst says:

    Yep, you and me both, Frank. Every time I hear some do-gooding health-zealot likening their own favourite hobby-horse to tobacco (“… is the new tobacco,” “ … should carry health warnings like cigarettes,” “ … should be subject to a similar campaign as smoking,”) or brazenly emulating the leading lights of the anti-smoking brigade (“CASH,” “Action on Sugar” etc) my spirits are lifted.

    I actually don’t think that drinkers, fast-food eaters, sweetie-consumers etc will spot the identical nature of these new campaigns to that of anti-smoking of their own volition, though. Most people have been far too brainwashed (or are simply too unwilling) to see the connections, obvious though they are. So it’s very helpful that each and every new little anti-this or anti-that brigade keeps relentlessly pointing out how alike they are and how they intend to use the very same tactics – from advertising bans to warning labels to price hikes to regulatory restrictions – right down to the wire. Their constant “Spartacus-like” proclamations – “We are the New Tobacco,” “No, WE are the new tobacco,” “Hey, no! WE are the New Tobacco!” – are nothing if not amusing to watch, as they all jostle and squabble amongst themselves to see who WILL end up being the “New Tobacco.”

    And, as I say, these new campaigners’ blind adherence to mimicking Tobacco Control in every possible way they can will ensure that eventually even the densest of drones will no longer be able to avoid the uncomfortable fact that what smokers have been saying all along was right – that there’ll always be a “next logical step” beyond the last one; that it won’t stop just at smokers or smoking; and that it won’t stay limited to public places or places where there are cheeeldren present. And when they do, if they have any variety of vice or pleasure that they wish to protect (and who doesn’t, apart from the likes of Arnott?), they’ll also have to recognise that in order to stop the burgeoning growth of the invasive weed which Healthism has become then they will have to swallow their pride, admit that they allowed themselves to be duped in the first place and – just as with any unwelcome plant infestation in one’s back garden – go right back to the very roots (i.e. the anti-smoking movement) and eliminate it completely, bottom-up stylee …

    I can’t wait!

    • nisakiman says:

      Their constant “Spartacus-like” proclamations – “We are the New Tobacco,” “No, WE are the new tobacco,” “Hey, no! WE are the New Tobacco!” – are nothing if not amusing to watch, as they all jostle and squabble amongst themselves to see who WILL end up being the “New Tobacco.”

    • Jax, you wrote, “Yep, you and me both, Frank. Every time I hear some do-gooding health-zealot likening their own favourite hobby-horse to tobacco (“… is the new tobacco,” “ … should carry health warnings like cigarettes,” “ … should be subject to a similar campaign as smoking,”) or brazenly emulating the leading lights of the anti-smoking brigade (“CASH,” “Action on Sugar” etc) my spirits are lifted.”

      I fully agree, and if I’m posting on a board I’ll always take full opportunity to suggest that the first step should be to follow Antismokers’ recommendation on establishing a “Level Playing Field” and demanding “parity” in regulations and taxation.

      Parity in taxation would of course mean a rough tripling or even quadrupling of the offending products’ base cost, the same as has been done for cigarettes. The base price of a pack of generic cigarettes in the US once taxes and price-point-softness are removed would be about $2. You can see that price point from looking at the “little cigars” type prices in states with low tax rates on such products. In practice the prices tend to be a little higher — $2.50 to $3 — because of the leeway built in by the fact that their main competitors are so outrageously more expensive that that extra fifty cents or so simply doesn’t act as a deterrent to any purchases and gives the producers a “free” extra profit to walk away with.

      But once that base price has been excise & sales taxed by the feds, states, cities and MSA “secret tax” (at least here in the US) the overall price jumps up into the $5 to $10+ range — a tripling or quadrupling (or more!) of the base price.

      Our arguments, straight from the Antis’ playbook, are easy, particularly for cars…

      1) Saving the lives of the children (particularly true with the short-term immediate deaths from cars that would be reduced by a tripling of gasoline taxes)

      2) Improving quality of life for the nonusers (again, specifically aimed at the more pleasant and safer walking, bicycling, and child-rearing-street environments if auto traffic was cut by 80 or 90%

      3) The “secondhand exhaust” straight from the tailpipe (as paralleled to “secondhand smoke” from the end of the burning cigarette) is many times worse than the exhaust drivers breathe (in concentration at least… though quite possibly in composition as well.

      4) The health costs of both direct medical and lost productivity from those who are killed or maimed for life in early-life car accidents is immense.

      etc.

      For Sodas, meat, junk foods, video games, etc the arguments aren’t quite as instantly compelling, but would certainly be strong enough to warrant having all food items in supermarkets etc plain-packaged in brown paper sacks with only point-size-ten small print identifying what’s in the bag and about 70% of the bag surface covered with gory pics of possible product results. Hmm… it might also be good, just for consistency’s sake, to lock all those products behind steel doors and make customers ask for them at a counter without being able to see them.

      It’s difficult to frame the argument in a way that makes the justified parallels clear while at the same time avoiding the appearance of extremism that would make the average person simply blank the message out as kooky — but the Antismokers achieved if in their own campaign, so it’s not impossible.

      – MJM

  6. Some other Tom says:

    Fascinating topic. On the one hand, I absolutely believe, with no doubt whatsoever, that smokers were the guinea pigs and the testing grounds for grand social engineering experiments. It has worked – not in reducing smoking really, (although I am sure numbers have dropped as a percentage of people who admit to doing it, I still am amazed at how many people still smoke, vape) – It has been a huge success in passing laws! Using jack boot enforcement of their goals to ‘eliminate’ whatever from society/social norm they deem.

    It isn’t warning labels that scare me, or that there may be some similar witch hunt for some other bogeyman. It isn’t that at all, because on the plus side, people are much more savvy and less trusting of warnings like that. I don’t think any majority believes in that sort of thing at all, nor the people who claim to ‘know’.

    What scares me is that these people simply pass laws, bans, new legislation to suddenly make your life, the things you enjoy and find pleasure in totally null and void. The whole FiZZ thing is, I am sure, nothing more than a pony show before the real act. If – when – they really want to ban all sugary fizzy drinks, they simply will. They are callous assholes and the bullying has grown to a point where logic and reasoning will never work.

  7. waltc says:

    Agreed. Apres moi, le deluge. Tho, alas, I think most of the already brainwashed will continue to think that “smoking is different.” But I don’t think I even care any more. I may be ready for pure spite.

  8. Frank J says:

    Oh, I think the bowing and scraping public will notice all right, when all these restrictions and bans hit the fan.

    What we don’t know is how they’ll react. Shrug the shoulders or what? Its the reaction that the powers that be will take notice of.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      They will fight back for the same reasons we are……………..In every group theres a few that will fight the beast to the end. Its these people who are tomorros leaders.

  9. XX It’s been us smokers who have been the guinea pigs on which most of the experimentation has been done. Now it’s everybody else’s turn to get the same treatment.

    Maybe some of them will at last start to notice their freedoms being taken away? XX

    But the dim witted bastards will STILL refuse, or be unable to, link the two.

    • “Oh! But smoking and Cola are not the same! SMOKING is DANGEROUS!”

      You can hear the bastards right now!

      • nisakiman says:

        Unfortunately, I’d tend to agree with you on that, FT.

        People are so thoroughly brainwashed with anti-smoking propaganda that they will be indignantly incensed at the attacks on their fizzy-pops, while still nodding sagely in agreement with the draconian regulations that surround smoking.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Whether they care about our demise or not. The issue is nobody will like having their vice regulated to the degree the smokers have been. When they get put in our shoes and they will if the trend continues they too will be fighting back just as we are. It matters not if they care about are plight, their enemy is our enemy and they will be fighting them too.

          In essence they will be our allies and never even know it!

      • XX harleyrider1978 says:
        In essence they will be our allies and never even know it! XX

        Dangerous friends.

        The same ones would/will still fight for “smoke free zones.”

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Ahh but FT, they will be destroying the political structure that keeps those laws on the books.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Its a natural balancing act. When the time comes as it always does to start repealing nanny laws they all get wiped.

  10. Bill says:

    Softly, softly catchee monkey.

  11. But as demand for more or less everything dries up, and everyone stays home and stops spending, I reckon the economy will completely collapse.

    And maybe that’s what they want too?

    There’s no doubt about it. That’s partly what the Green agenda and deindustrialising the West is all about. When we’re dirt poor and the middle classes have been expunged then it makes it far easier for the elites to control us. We’ll be like the pathetic folk in those newsreels (old expression, I know), who, when faced with some disaster, just sit there crying and shaking their heads out of helplessness. You know the scenes: women in headscarves bawling their eyes out and others shrugging their shoulders, unable to change their dire situation.

    As for SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages), you know you’re in trouble when they turn it into an abbreviation! What they want is for us all to overdose on the likes of aspartame, allegedly the cause of dozens of diseases and conditions, including obesity.

    Yet the ‘diet’ versions of most soft drinks use it, including Scotland’s “other” national drink, Irn-Bru, which also still contains E110 and E125 (sunset yellow and ponceau 4R which give it the distinctive radioactive colouring) and are linked to childhood hyperactivity, not to mention a diverse range of other diseases, like cancer, asthma and hives..

    Yet, it is the hive mentality that drives people to falsely identify sugar as the deadliest ingredient. Like SHS and manmade climate change, it’s a given thing to them. They’ll also likely believe that the end of nation states will produce a peaceful Utopia-like earth.

    The problem is that fizzy drinks are consumed in vast quantities by some people. We didn’t go into that growing up. It was one glass of pop and then homework or out to play. Maybe not being driven everywhere and having to carry glass (returnable) bottles home had something to do with limiting our intake.

    This man claims to have drunk eight litres of Irn-Bru every day for 20 years and apparently, the sugar was the cause of his heart disease. Maybe it was the vast quantities of other added chemicals he ingested, which, as well as the colourings, includes caffeine and quinine. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/dad-reveals-how-eight-litres-1455884

    According to this: http://cancer.dartmouth.edu/pf/health_encyclopedia/d00366a1

    You should not take quinine if you have a heart rhythm disorder called Long QT syndrome, G-6-PD (an enzyme deficiency), a blood clotting disorder, myasthenia gravis, or optic neuritis (inflammation of the nerves in your eyes).

    But hey, blame the sugar. The ‘experts’ have become hardwired to believe (and well paid to ‘prove’) that a few basic and necessary foodstuffs, sugar, fat and salt, are our greatest culinary enemies.

    • nisakiman says:

      Excellent article, Roo. I Tweeted the link, I thought it so well considered.

      PC culture allows participants to pretend as though they have some greater understanding of the world, an elevated knowledge of life that makes them superior to the uninitiated. It is important to understand that when a person pursues the methodology of zealotry, he doesn’t do it to make the world a better place; he does it to feel better about his place in the world.

      Just so.

    • cherie79 says:

      Great article thanks for pointing me to it.

  12. Rose says:

    We are a group of researchers and public health doctors who have come together to advocate for ending the sale of sugar sweetened beverages (sugary drinks) from New Zealand. Many studies link the intake of sugary drinks with poor health, including obesity, type-2 diabetes, rotten teeth, gout and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease and premature death

    Sugar tax conference ‘used for political advocacy’

    “The Taxpayers’ Union is slamming a group of academics who appear to be using taxpayer funds for political advocacy and pushing for a tax on sugar. The group of academics, calling themselves ‘Fizz’ are meeting in Auckland from today.

    “Despite the public comments that this conference is about science, half of the two day programme is devoted to political advocacy,” says Executive Director of the union, Jordan Williams.

    Yesterday the Taxpayers’ Union revealed that the Fizz group was falsely claiming the endorsement of the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC). The HRC required Fizz to remove the HRC logo from promotional material. Though the HRC has provided support for research work to some of those who are involved in Fizz, it does not support Fizz’s political type activity.

    “It appears that Fizz organiser, Dr Gerhard Sundborn, is using the taxpayer funding from an HRC fellowship to aide the political messages of the Fizz group.”
    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/21553141/sugar-tax-conference-used-for-political-advocacy/

    “A first of its kind – the Sugary Drink Free Pacific by 2030? symposium will be held in Auckland, New Zealand on 19th-20th February, 2014”

    So who is paying for the symposium, I wonder?

    Presumably artifical sweeteners will be exempt, what worries me is that playing around with a stevia plant, I found that my brain is entirely fooled.

    From a cursory search sugar is important for the brain and powers the muscles, so what happens when you don’t get the sugar you need, but your brain has been fooled into thinking you have it?

    We all know about the margarine companies falsely demonising butter to the extent that people were afraid to use it, at base these campaigns are rarely for the public good, no matter what they pretend.

    Many studies link the intake of sugary drinks with poor health, including obesity, type-2 diabetes, rotten teeth, gout and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease and premature death

    Well they would say that wouldn’t they.

    Another study

    Sugar can help make you a sweeter person, researchers claim

    “The report said: The findings suggest a link between glucose levels and the expression of prejudice and the use of stereotypes ”

    “They believe that sweet drinks give people a sugar rush that helps supply the brain with the fuel needed to suppress outspoken opinions”

    “Those who had drunk the sugary drink used far fewer stereotypes in their essays than those who had the artificial sweetener, leading to a theory that people can use restraint to keep objectionable thoughts to themselves when they have higher amounts of glucose in their body.”

    “Because self-control depends on processes that consume glucose as an energy source, people who have lower levels of blood glucose may be more likely to express prejudice”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3176128/Sugar-makes-you-sweeter.html

    So that would seem to explain the Fizz “researchers and public health doctors” expressions of prejudice, presumably being devoid of the necessary glucose to hold a balanced opinion due to their irrational fear of sugar.

    • Frank Davis says:

      suppress outspoken opinions

      Oh dear. I can’t be getting enough sugar.

      self-control depends on processes that consume glucose

      Why do all these people place such emphasis on ‘self-control’? Smokers are always being told they lack self-control. Now it’s being demanded with sugar.

      • Rose says:

        Now I have vast reserves of self-control, I had hot porridge with golden syrup and double cream for lunch.

        Further entertainment.

        HARLOT plc: an amalgamation of the world’s two oldest professions – BMJ 2003

        “Tired of being good but poor, the authors have amalgamated the world’s two oldest professions in a new niche company, HARLOT plc, specialising in How to Achieve positive Results without actually Lying to Overcome the Truth

        We’ve been good. DLS has prohibited sponsors’ stockholders, much less employees, from seats on his data safety and monitoring boards and has enforced the banning of pharmaceutical reps from the medical wards at McMaster University. ADO has exposed problems with experts and has promulgated rigorous reviews of research to inform decisions about health care. In sum, we have established impeccable reputations for protecting the validity of randomised trials and systematic reviews, and for exposing lapses in methods, validity, therapeutic claims, and professional conduct.

        We’ve also been poor. DLS drives a clapped out pick-up truck, and his rowing boat leaks. ADO wears worn out blue jeans and hasn’t had a new pair of shoes for 10 years.

        It has finally dawned on us that being good and being poor are causally related: beinggood doesn’t pay. Accordingly, we have decided that it’s time for us to find out whether being bad pays better. We’re combining the world’s oldest and second oldest professions, cashing in on our reputations, and distributing this confidential prospectus for our new company, HARLOT plc.

        HARLOT services

        HARLOT plc will provide a comprehensive package of services to discriminating trial sponsors who don’t want to risk the acceptance and application of their products and policies amid the uncertainties of dispassionate science.

        Through a series of blind, wholly owned subsidiaries, we can guarantee positive results for the manufacturers of dodgy drugs and devices who are seeking to increase their market shares, for health professional guilds who want to increase the demand for their unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic services, and for local and national health departments who are seeking to implement irrational and self serving health policies.”
        http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1442

        The rapid responses are well worth a read, but to see the rest of their services go here.
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300797/

  13. Pingback: Banning Everything Has Its Advantages - Bring I...

  14. garyk30 says:

    Fizzy drinks/smoking/drinking/lack of exercise/etc are going to kill you!!!!

    Well; surprise to these doom criers, everyone is going to die in the end.

    But, let’s put a little reality into the debate.
    (Figures are for the USA)

    Dying is somewhat of a rare event.
    Only 1/129 people die per year from all causes.
    2.4 million deaths out of 310 million people.

    That means that I have only an 0.8% chance of dying and a 99.2% chance of not dying in any given year.

    Let’s look at a specific disease like lung cancer.
    There are 160,000 deaths per the 310 million people.

    That is a over all rate of 1 per 1,938 people per year.
    Dying from lung cancer is a rather rare event.

    In general, people have only 5/100ths of a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer in any given year.
    You have a 99.95% chance of not dying from lung cancer in any given year.

    That 99.95% chance of not dying is the same for both smokers and never-smokers.

    In a funny co-incidence, smokers have 99.95% of never-smokers chances of not dying from lung cancer.

    never-smokers lung cancer death(LCD) rate is 2/10,000 with 9,998 not dying.

    smokers LCD rate is 7/10,000 with 9,993 not dting.

    9,993 is 99.95% of 9,998.

    A never-smoker’s chance of not dying from lung cancer is only 1.0005 times greater than a smoker’s chance of not dying from lung cancer.

    • Surely, with a million cases a year, abortion is the biggest killer in the US. If you escape that fate and live to be an adult, you’re entitled to smoke and drink all the sugary sodas you want.

  15. garyk30 says:

    Heavy smokers and never-smokers have almost precisely the same chances of NOT dying from those diseases caused by smoking.
    Doll’s doctor mortality report.
    http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/400720/field_highwire_article_pdf/0/bmj.38142.554479.AE

    The table on page 3 shows this:
    Lung cancer deaths per year.
    heavy smokers(25+/day) = 4.17/1,000 = 995.83 did not die.

    never-smokers = 0.17/1,000 = 999.83 did not die.

    999.83 divided by 995.83 = 1.004.

    Never-smokers are only 1.004 times more likely than heavy smokers, to not die from lung cancer!!!

    When you have to go to 3 decimal places to find a difference, that difference is, for all practicality, non-existent.

    Other results:
    mouth/throat cancers = 1.001 times more likely to not die.

    all other cancers = 1.002 times.

    COPD = 1.002 times.

    other respiratory = 1.002 times.

    heart attack = 1.005 times.

    stroke = 1.002 times.

    other vascular = 1.003 times.

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-20/caracas-burning-maduro-warned-may-face-military-coup

    Caracas Is Burning As Maduro Warned May Face Military Coup
    Tyler Durden’s pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 02/20/2014 13:07 -0500

    • churchmouse says:

      Capriles would have been a much better leader.

      Under Chavez things went too far downhill. Under Maduro, the slump continues (quelle surprise).

      What is it about the Left that causes so many shortages, e.g. Venezuela’s toilet paper supply went in the tank, so to speak, for several months.

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    Time to push back against the global warming Nazis
    February 20th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    CFACT
    “Wow. Usually mild-mannered climate scientist Roy Spencer has had enough. He’s tired of the warming-left calling scientists “deniers” for daring to compare computer models to the real world. So tired, he used the “N” word (the one with the jack-booted thugs).

    To really appreciate how far the warming people have pushed him, you have to know Roy and what a sweetheart of a guy he is.

    Share the facts from Dr. Roy Spencer:

    “Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

    When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

    They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

    Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

    I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

    The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

    They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.”
    _________________

    We can hear the warming propaganda machine now. “How dare he!” they’ll shriek. Will the media balance that with “how dare the warmists say the outrageous things they do?”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    Tornado time again folks!

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.