I’m still thinking about that report I mentioned yesterday:
The last cigarette smoked in England will be put out in 2050 – and Bristol’s final smoker will quit in just five years, scientists claim
If nothing else, this claim captures just a little of the scale of the ambition of Tobacco Control. For Tobacco Control hasn’t just set out to stop everyone from smoking in England: they’ve set out to to stop all smoking everywhere in the world.
They have embarked on a truly vast project. It’s a project that amounts to a global revolution: stopping everyone from smoking anything, anywhere. It’s a project that rivals the Communist Revolutionary project, which was also global in scale.
We should perhaps think of Richard Doll as a new Lenin, and George Godber as a new Stalin, and Deborah Arnott as a Rosa Luxemburg. And in fact that was probably how they saw themselves, and still see themselves – as revolutionaries out to re-make the world into a Better Place. These conferences they hold all round the world are their version of the meetings of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet.
But it’s precisely because it’s such a vast project on which they have embarked that it is also a doomed project. Because the bigger the project on which anyone embarks, the less likely it is to succeed. If you set out to do something that’s simple and easy, you’ll probably succeed in carrying it to completion.
And it’s also because it’s such a vast project that it’s also a monstrous project. The bigger the project, the more people who will get crushed and destroyed by it. If you set out, for example, to completely rebuild New York City, millions of people will be displaced and exiled and evicted in the process.
The same thing applies to the EU “project”. It became over-ambitious. What had been a little collection of trading nations metamorphosed into an emerging superstate. And it started crushing too many people with its one-size-fits-all strictures.
The fate of Tobacco Control is going to be the same fate as the Soviet Union (and now the EU). It was simply far too ambitious. And it made too many enemies. And what had started out looking new and attractive to millions of ardent believers ended up looking ugly and brutal to almost everybody with eyes to see.
Because Tobacco Control is ugly and brutal. And it’s not so much engaged in creating a new world as it is in destroying an old one. Tobacco Control doesn’t make anything: it only breaks things. It’s purely vandalistic. It disfigures everything it touches (as is readily apparent in its obscene “plain packaging” ).
Tobacco Control is ugly and brutal, and so is everyone who works in it. They’re all extremely nasty people. Richard Doll, George Godber, Stanton Glantz, Deborah Arnott, and all the rest of them are very, very nasty people. And they’re nasty because the project on which they’ve been engaged is a monstrous project.
They’re all bastards in Tobacco Control. You’re some sort of bastard if you’re trying to force people to do something they don’t want to do. It doesn’t make any difference if you think that you’re doing them good by making them stop smoking: once you started forcing them to do it, all the good went out of it.
Tobacco Control likes to portray tobacco companies as the embodiment of evil in the world. But tobacco companies don’t force people to smoke in the way that Tobacco Control forces people to stop smoking. Tobacco companies sell a product that people can buy or not buy: they let people make up their own minds. But Tobacco Control wants to take away people’s freedom to choose. And that’s why it’s really Tobacco Control that is the true embodiment of evil in the world. And why one day it will be recognised as evil.
Hat tip to Walt for this:
The debate over tobacco control in Europe is expected to heat up next week, as public health and human rights activists are organising a series of events in Bucharest with the aim to advocate the fight against tobacco as a fundamental right.
On 26 March, a Global Forum on Human Rights and a Tobacco-Free World will be organised in Romania by the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP), ASH and hosted by Romanian President Klaus Iohannis. In addition, on 27-29 March, ENSP will organise its 4th International Conference on Tobacco Control together with the Romanian Society of Pneumology.
Andriukaitis, who will participate in the conferences, said the right to health was fundamental.
“It’s introduced in the Lisbon Treaty and all our policies should keep in mind that people’s health needs to be protected. It’s a fundamental right to protect children from risk factors and implement child rights conventions signed by countries worldwide,” the EU Commissioner said.
I don’t think there is “a right to health”. How can there be a right to health in a world where everyone eventually ends up dead? Clearly no such right exists. It’s wishful thinking.
Another bizarre piece of thinking from the same piece:
Andriukaitis said tobacco was an “accidental product” in Europe as no one on the continent smoked before Columbus brought it here. He said nicotine was a completely different issue compared to alcohol, whose consumption indeed needs to be controlled, but alcohol has had 10,000 years of culture in the continent.
So this guy thinks that if something has been around for a mere 500 years it’s some sort of upstart interloper, but if it’s been around for 10,000 years it’s an established part of the culture.
By that reasoning (if it merits the name of reasoning) more or less everything we use these days, from cars and trains and planes to computers and phones and TV sets, must all be regarded as “accidental products”. because they’ve been around for a lot less than 500 years. Does he want to ban them too? And if not, why not?
And this guy is the EU Commissioner responsible for health. Is it any wonder that the EU is disintegrating, if it’s run by people like this?