Suppose you get the finger, Mr. Le Grand
Author: Gian Turci
Article Published: 19 February 2008
When I read the FORCES piece reporting the latest and greatest manifestation of British mental disease — requiring a licence to purchase tobacco products — I could not help rushing to the keyboard to write a few lines.
LINK TO THE FORCES PIECE
I took this Guardian article as a guide (stored link here).
I read that the idea originated with Julian Le Grand, a government health advisor, whose position paper says: "Suppose every individual who wanted to buy tobacco had to purchase a permit. And suppose further they had to do this every year. To get a permit would involve filling out a form and supplying a photograph, as well as paying the fee. Permits would only be issued to those over 18 and evidence of age would have to be provided. The money raised would go to the NHS."
So the stolen money receives light laundering on its way to Julian Le Grand's advisorial pocket!
Le Grand (voleur) elucidates: "Breaking the new year's resolution not to smoke would be costly in terms of both money and time ... [This] would probably have a greater impact on poor smokers than on rich ones, hence contributing to a reduction in health inequalities. Administratively it would require addressing the problem of the existing black markets and smuggling in tobacco; but this should probably be done anyway. Politically, this might be viewed by some as giving people a 'licence' to smoke; and by full-blooded libertarians as a subtle and hence even more dangerous form of paternalism — paternalism squared.”
No kidding — and I have a suitable counterproposal.
Suppose that we give you the finger, Mr. Le Grand — to you personally, to what you stand for, and especially to the government you represent. Suppose that we break that rotten law that your pinheaded, bureaucratic mind has concocted, and that we get 100% of our cigarettes illegally, which is exactly what you fear.
Now, suppose that we take to the streets and bring the political situation to a point where it is extremely expensive and laborious to control. In short, suppose that we adopt the same mentality that you have — to "make it difficult" for the bastards to make it difficult for us.
Then too, suppose that we make you feel like a criminal, which is what you want us to feel like, and also what I personally believe that "public health" has become.
Suppose the people harass Healthists like you, Mr. Le Grand, every day of every year, and do suppose that this is becoming a reality, right now. We understand you do not respect debate or gentle persuasion. We will break you of your fascist habit. Unlike you, we are not hypocrites, so we will not say we are practicing "tough love." It's simply going to be a tough break for you, Mr. Le Grand, just as painful as we can make it.
I also read on The Smoking Doctor’s Blog a revelation by Blad Tolstoj, [stored link] who in turn links to Simon Clark’s (FOREST) blog [stored link]. Scroll down for the appropriate passages of Clark's blog in which he writes (emphases added):
“Ralph Harris and I began the 30-minute meeting by outlining our objections to a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places. … We highlighted the major studies and concluded that the evidence could not possibly justify a comprehensive ban. … When we finished, Reid turned to his senior advisor and asked: "What do you think?" Julian Le Grand didn't hesitate. 'I agree with them,' he said, nodding in our direction. Reid thought for a moment, then said (I paraphrase): 'Yes, I've always been pretty dubious about passive smoking.' Less encouragingly, he went on to say that the threat of 'passive smoking' was not the reason the government wanted further restrictions on public smoking. The real reason, he explained, was to encourage smokers to quit so the government could meet its target of reducing the smoking rate to 21 per cent by 2010. (That is why, despite our best efforts, the issue of passive smoking remains a sideshow to the main event.)”
Very lovely, very fascistically typical, Le Grand knows that the dangers of passive smoking are a fraud, but he believes that the use of a fraud by government is a necessary tool to reduce smoking, although not even one death can be scientifically proven to be caused by smoking. Very credible, very honest, and especially, very ethical. That is antitobacco at work for you.
Let me be plain. The nauseating Julian Le Grand should take his junk science, and his paternalism, complete with his £10 license and his bureaucratic crap, and put them in the hole he keeps his head in.
Let me be plainer. "Public Health" has become Le Grand Prix (please pronounce it in the English way, thank you) of the fascists, the liars, and the paternalistic bigots who deserve utter contempt, total defiance, and long terms in jail.
We the smokers, the fatsos, and the drinkers have a big and exciting job to do. Let’s make it VERY difficult for the “public health” sociopaths to do their jobs. We could say we were doing this out of compassion, that these sick people need our help, and we have to really give it to them: stretch out our hands and help them quit the race of the grand prix and be well again.
We are not hypocrites though. We do not believe sociopathy is a curable mental disease. We do not want to help Julian Le Grand and his criminal sort. We want them deservedly to suffer what they viciously attempt to inflict, humiliation, and destruction.