A comment from Some French bloke cast doubt on whether mounting nationalism would help smokers:
…out of the 191+ nations of the world, not one offered any kind of significant resistance to the global onslaught against smoking and smokers…
And the EU didn’t start anything in that respect; indeed, Britain, long before it joined the Common Market, has historically been a prime mover in that unprecedented socially-engineered mass-hysteria campaign…
This reminded me of the debate I’ve been having recently with Brigitte in the Smoky Drinky Bar. She believes that when (or rather, if) Britain leaves the EU, it’s going to get a lot worse for British smokers, for the reasons SFB outlines. I, on the contrary, believe that Britain leaving the EU won’t have any such effect.
It’s quite true that Britain has historically been a prime mover in the smoking scare. After all, we gave the world the 1950 Richard Doll and Bradford Hill studies, and in 1970 George Godber and his Blueprint, and a few other nutters (like my Dr W), and now in 2000 ASH’s Deborah Arnott. But many of these people came from the medical profession. The British political establishment was actually very slow to follow the lead of these campaigning doctors. It was about 20 years before the first minor restrictions on smoking in public transport were introduced, and 40 years before tobacco advertising was stopped, and 55 years before draconian pub smoking bans were imposed. British governments have actually been dragging their feet for a very long time in doing anything about smoking. British governments (and very arguably governments everywhere in general) tend to be rather conservative. The hysteria campaign doesn’t come from national government: it comes from the hysterics in the medical profession.
Much the same is true of the climate change scare, with British scientists in the University of East Anglia among the leaders in promoting that scare. Once again, the British government (and more or less every other government in the world) have been dragging their feet in doing anything about it.
National governments are not the principal drivers in either the smoking scare or the climate change scare. The drivers of the smoking scare are from the medical profession, and in particular the global representatives of that profession in the WHO, and have been personified by people like Gro Harlem Brundtland. And the drivers of the climate change scare are from the universities and the UN IPCC. Both scares are being driven by progressive globalist institutions like the WHO, UN, and the EU in the face of foot-dragging by national governments everywhere. The EU was leading the way in promoting antismoking measures in 1989, and it took EU member states another 20 years to be bullied into introducing a whole raft of draconian antismoking measures.
The war on smoking is a globalist enterprise, and the war on climate change is also a globalist enterprise. Both are being run from out of global organisations, and they’re very organised about it.
But what seems to me to now be happening is that the people of the 191+ nations of the world are getting fed up with these unelected and unaccountable global institutions bossing them around in all kinds of ways, and in effect shifting national sovereignty to some sort of globalised state (New World Order?). And this is why there’s a mounting “nationalist populist” (not a term I much like) revolt against globalism.
And in Britain, the perfect embodiment of this revolt is to be found in Nigel Farage, who is a smoking and drinking climate change sceptic, and someone who has actively campaigned against smoking bans. I don’t think it’s an accident that other European populist leaders, like Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini, are smokers as well.
It seems to me quite possible (maybe now even quite likely) that Nigel Farage could become another British Prime Minister at some point in the future (if Boris can do it, why not Nigel?). And I have no doubt whatsoever that he would use that office to at least relieve the condition of Britain’s smokers a little (by at least introducing smoking rooms in pubs). Nigel Farage, after all, is One Of Us.
So I think that the departure of Britain from the EU, and the return of national sovereignty to Britain, so that we can make our own laws for our own people again, and the election of populists like Nigel Farage to government, would be an absolute disaster for the globalist enterprise of Tobacco Control. And in fact I can’t see any other way in which the antismoking tide can be otherwise stemmed.
But I don’t know whether Britain is actually going to leave the EU, and if we do whether we’ll be able to make our own laws, and in fact whether people like Nigel Farage will attain high political office. None of these things have happened yet.
What I am quite sure about is that the more we all come under the control of unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracies like the UN and EU and WHO, the more of our freedoms are going to vanish, and vanish everywhere in the world.
It was Harold Himsworth, the then head of the Medical Research Council, who would ultimately green light Dolls London Study and Doctors study. It was Himsworth that would green light studies into the possible health effects of atomic weapons testing, including overseeing the work of Burch who was collecting data on the levels of radiation in rain water from testing. It was Himsworth and Godber that were the UK representatives for the formation of the IARC. It would be Himsworth that would be the interface with the British state, as the UK planned to become a nuclear power, and the research projects and researchers under his purview.
I think it was convenient for the UK and US governments (and allies) to give cash to researchers interested in making a name for themselves in the area of smoking and lung cancer while at the same time employing their best in nuclear related research eg Burch.
The war on smokers in the UK has possibly had the finger prints of the British state on it all along. Because regardless of whether it is true that atomic tests cause lung cancer , there would be a need to distract the public away from those fears in any case.
A few weeks after the UK explodes a hydrogen bomb in 1957 the then government announces
that it will inform the public on the rise in lung cancer that is attributed to smoking.
So I agree broadly with French Bloke, I think the UK free of EU red tape will carry on the war against smokers.
It doesn’t seem entirely implausible that the British government should want to blame smoking instead of radioactive fallout for lung cancer just after Britain’s first nuclear test. But it doesn’t explain why all the other 191+ national governments, most of whom weren’t testing nukes, should want to do the same
Because they would find that their lung cancer rates were climbing and when they compared smokers VS non-smokers they would find a greater risk for smokers (due to detection bias) and come to the conclusion that their lung cancer epidemic was indeed caused by smoking. But not all countries did make efforts to reduce smoking prevalence – the USSR for example. And we know that in these countries lung cancer deaths fell at the same rate as in the west after 1985 despite making no effort to reduce tobacco consumption.
The media always play a key-role when it comes to ensuring public acceptance of the antis’ demands, so I’m wondering whether the Russian MSM really started promoting them ‘from scratch’ around 1990, after the collapse of the Eastern block, or whether anti-smoking messages had already been worming their way into the public mind for some years, as part of the Western influence which was growing along with the people’s dissatisfaction with the regime.
From the article linked below: In the last months of the Soviet Union, when the centrally planned economy’s distribution system–not always reliable at the best of times–started to fail, there were even riots when cigarettes ran out.
The mind boggles at the thought that it may only have taken less than 30 years of social-engineering until the people there were (deemed to be) prepared to accept this kind of craziness: Russia bans smoking on apartment balconies (BBC News, sept. 27/2019), or: Russia’s health ministry is considering a permanent ban on selling cigarettes to people born in 2014 or later (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat, jan. 10/2017). Not to mention their public smoking ban (as of June 1, 2014).
It would be interesting to read Dmitri’s impressions, or recollections, about this. If he happens to be around I’d even suggest to him to do a little research and provide us with a timeline of TobCon’s propaganda efforts in Russia over the last 3 decades.
I am flying over the Caspian Sea, destination Singapore, then SYD, after departing from Heathrow. Returning to the UK from Italia, although just for one night, reminded me how the odious rent seeking likes of ASH have successfully lobbied to uglify and deface the entire built environment by a plague of signs commanding NO SMOKING every few metres. Who ever agreed to such hysterical neurotic overkill, funded with money extorted from smokers as usual. Why is health cultist neuroticism sufficient basis for global persecution of those engaging in a mostly harmless recreational pastime. The prohibitionist one size fits all whether you like it or not smoking “treatments” violate personal autonomy and are abhorrent to morality and medical ethics. I DO NOT CONSENT!! How can we get this message across to spineless politicians and the well funded prohibitionist bullies they exclusively heed… Rhetorical questions: our views are irrelevant, smokers are merely targets for government sanctioned persecution and extortion. I too am extremely angry at the bullying, lies and propaganda, but our preferences are repeatedly treated with contempt. Hong Kong protest tactics would be justified…
Well, Trump can’t hang around with Nigel because he doesn’t smoke. That means that Nigel probably stinks to him. And he has a french weirdo as his new best friend anyways.
Nigel Farage has stated that he will stand for election at the next GE.
Cameron threw everything possible (and some illegal) at him and he came 2nd by a small margin when he made his last attempt, so it’ll depend on what Boris wants to do. I know they’re not the best of buddies, yet it may suit his purpose to have him in Westminster.
There’s a better than even chance of Ms.Rees Mogg being elected under the Brexit banner if Boris bottles it with the EU. Come to think of it, if BJ does screw up then all bets are off and it is technically possible for TBP to become the kingmaker.
I’m not trying to make out that having a couple of TBP MP’s in Westminster is going to change anything of substance for us lot, however it’ll give me great pleasure to know they’ll have achieved this at the expense of the legacy parties.
I’ll be very interested to see what the new Chancellor does at the next budget. 2%, 5% escalator, or just say enough’s enough?