Beautiful People

There seems to have been a bit of a tweetstorm in the aftermath of Jeremy Vine’s recent tweet.

I was writing about it yesterday in The Inconsiderate Jeremy Vine. And now my blog has been sucked into the storm as well. These days I potter along with about 500 hits per day, but this morning it’s up at 5000 hits today, and it’s still only 11 a.m. And I’ve attracted several new commenters, some in favour of Mr Vine, some against.

So it looks like the storm is still raging, and has now begun to spread outside Twitter. How wonderfully interesting.

One of yesterday’s comments from Clicky drew attention to a bizarre new ad, which I reproduce slightly enlarged:

As far as I can make out, the warnings at the bottom say:

Like smoking obesity puts millions of adults at greater risk of cancer

I can’t fathom out what this ad is trying to do. It seems to be advertising three different kinds of cigarettes, all called Obesity. Where can I buy a pack of 20 Obesity? Don’t they know that tobacco advertising is banned?

Some commenters immediately drew attention to the well known fact that obesity is frequently a consequence of giving up smoking. I’m not sure why it is, but it may be because the act of smoking is rather akin to the act of eating, and so when people stop smoking they start eating instead/ How else to explain the weight gain?

I suppose that CRUK (pronounced “crook” or “crock”) are trying to demonise obesity like they demonised cigarettes. But cigarettes are a product that people can buy, and obesity is not.

CRUK’s tweet accompanying the ad:

So it looks like they want to ban food and drink advertising in the same way as tobacco advertising. Do they want health warnings on food and alcohol products just like on tobacco products?

And are there really “obesity-related cancers”? Do fat people get more cancer than thin people? If so, it’s news to me.

Both the war on smoking and the war on obesity (obesity that was very often a consequence of people giving up smoking) are essentially moral campaigns. The moral zealots disapprove of smoking (and usually of drinking as well) and they disapprove of fat people. They wish to populate the world with slim, fit, non-smoking teetotalers.

Where did the expression teetotaler come from?

It originated, as we learn from the Landmark, with a man named Turner, a member of the Preston Temperance Society, who, having an impediment of speech, in addressing a meeting remarked, that partial abstinence from intoxicating liquors would not do; they must insist upon tee-tee-(stammering) tee total abstinence.

Theirs is really an aesthetic preference. They want a world full of beautiful people. It has nothing whatsoever to do with health, or even with cancer. They want people to look good. They want women to be pretty and men to be handsome. They are primarily concerned with appearances rather than underlying realities.

But everything they do is ugly. Their smoking bans are ugly. And their health warnings are ugly. And that includes the garbled, twisted, incoherent Obesity ad above.

About Frank Davis

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

17 Responses to Beautiful People

  1. garyk30 says:

    They want a world full of beautiful people.

    That is, beautiful according to their definition of ‘beauty’.
    They are nothing more than a bunch of conceited/self-centered twits.

  2. slugbop007 says:

    Is anybody here familiar with George Lakoff? He wrote a treatise on framing subject matter effectively, in a positive manner.

    TC hates people who like to consume tobacco products. Most recently they ignored fresh tobacco leaves as a cure for Ebola victims. That’s criminal. They really don’t care if their junk science theories are incorrect, it’s the principle that counts. They hate us and that is all that matters. They would not have lasted this long if they had not been subsidized with our tax monies. If they had been obliged to go door to door to seek donations for their cause their movement would have never taken flight.

    Here in Quebec the government tobacco warning states that 10, 000 people die from tobacco related deaths every year. No more, no less.

    Jeremy Clarkson from The Grand Tour quit smoking several months ago and has put on weight ever since.

    Want to stay slim? Keep smoking and drink grape juice. Best diet program in the world.

    slugbop007

  3. beobrigitte says:

    There seems to have been a bit of a tweetstorm in the aftermath of Jeremy Vine’s recent tweet.
    From what I gathered, he was totally ratioed. Quite rightly so.

    Apologies for going a bit wild on your post from yesterday. The anti-smoker posts are just tooooo tempting……

    And are there really “obesity-related cancers”? Do fat people get more cancer than thin people? If so, it’s news to me.
    It is to me, too. Looks like Crook is trying to wring more cash out of people and the gullible government…

    Both the war on smoking and the war on obesity (obesity that was very often a consequence of people giving up smoking) are essentially moral campaigns.
    By now the word “moral” is associated with having to live a life dictated by lobby groups which dictate THEIR idea of a life style that is immoral to other people. It is highly immoral to divide communities as it was done firstly by picking on smokers and currently is being continued by picking on overweight people. More groups that do not adhere to the holy health religion will be the next.

    How about live and let live? This moral has been shown to work wonderfully.

  4. petesquiz says:

    I commented on this Obesity related cancer nonsense on Facebook and someone kindly sent me a link to the Cancer Research site which in turn led me to the paper that it is based on – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5920679/
    It is entitled – OVERWEIGHT DURATION IN OLDER ADULTS AND CANCER RISK: A STUDY OF COHORTS IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES

    One part you will enjoy is in the discussion section where it notes that never smokers are more susceptible to “Obesity Related Cancers” than current smokers! Strangely, that didn’t find its way into the abstract nor any conclusions!

  5. Joe L. says:

    There certainly was an unusually large spike in Antismoking comments from never-seen-before commenters on yesterday’s post. It appears as though Tobacco Control sent their astroturfing crew to all corners of the internet in an attempt to suppress pro-smoking arguments in the wake of Jeremy Vine’s self-righteous tweet and failed poll.

    Very coincidental timing for multiple Antismokers to all stumble upon your blog on the same day.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      I agree, I had the same thoughts as the astroturf nature of the antismoker comments unfolded. The tobacco control grifters are afraid their lies will be exposed and they will lose their source of power and profit. After all they must protect their grift.

      • Rose says:

        Yes, I was suprised to see rent-a-mob surface again after all these years, and still coming out with the same old stuff as if there had never been a total smoking ban in every enclosed space to which the public have access for the last 12 years!
        They must have dug out the old scripts.

    • Possibly just one crew member. Six antismoking posts, ALL of which display almost exactly the same slight difficulties in writing good, grammatically correct English. The style is FAR too similar to be coming from six different people.

      – MJM

  6. waltc says:

    As though people smoke or (over) eat because they saw an ad.

  7. Vlad says:

    I find it plausible that obesity could be related to an increased cancer (and other diseases) risk . Generally speaking, in order to get obese, one has to eat crap food for some time and also be stressed (these 2, crap food and stress go hand in hand and reinforce each other). Now, smoking helps on both fronts – it’s an antidepressant and curbs down appetite. But if any public health official who somehow escaped brainwashing would admit this, he’d be quickly attacked by Big Pharma, Big Food and Big Public Health. Remember the stir caused by Dr. Ken Denson, 20 years ago? https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/nov/21/smoking.tracymcveigh

    • RdM says:

      Thanks for that Ken Denson original link Vlad, because that was one of the many of the FORCES links stashed at datayard,xxx something that has since expired.

    • RdM says:

      “The heretical claims were immediately condemned as ‘dangerous’ by mainstream cancer experts. ‘To say smoking under 10 a day is not dangerous is patently ridiculous,’ said Professor Richard Peto of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. ‘Any competent scientist is aware of the evidence that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that smoking causes lung cancer.”

  8. Vlad says:

    I’ll rant a bit more on CRUK…what they’re doing is applying the anti-tobacco playbook…restrict/ban ads, reformulate products, tax . That’s a disgrace for an organization with ‘research’ in its title and with a CEO earning more than £200k a year.
    While I don’t agree with CRUK’s practices, I’m not going to take the side of Big Food. Those guys are mostly selling garbage – mixtures of flour, sugar and oils – worth 10 cents, nicely packaged and advertised and sold for a dollar. So in my view this is not a fight between good guys and bad guys but a fight between 2 bad guys. What’s a person to do? Not donate a cent to a ‘charity’ like CRUK and stop buying garbage from Big Food.

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.