Class Warfare and Saving Lives

Over the next few days, weeks, and months (hell, possibly years) you're going to see a lot of people say stupid shit just like this:

Rebecca Taylor MEP:
"Congratulations to all those #ENVI MEPs who voted in favour of #medicines route for #ecigs; you did what #tobacco industry wanted : (

Or (perhaps unintended, perhaps intentional) asinine things like this:

Chris Davies MEP:
"Key e-cigs vote lost 45-25. People will die unnecessarily as a result unless this can be changed. #e-cigs"

And more than a bit of this hysterics from some vapers, evidently learned from tobacco control and their sheep minions of hate:

g james:
".@LindaMcAvanMEP how does it feel to advance your career on the backs of 1,000s of deaths? #ecigs #EuEcigBan #SWOF #BBJ"

But what you won't see very much of is this, which is absolutely spot-on and true (note: I don't know this MEP, or what she stands for, but I like the wording of this tweet -- I'm certainly not endorsing this MEP):

Marina Yannakoudakis MEP:
"E-cigarette users let down as MEPs reject @ecrgroup amendment & instead support Socialist & Green plan to classify #ecigs as medical devices"

I believe that last tweet really just sums up the situation with MEPs choosing to (effectively) ban e-cigs, along with a total ban on menthol cigarettes, and a total ban on slim cigarettes, and new 75% graphic health warnings, and whatever other evil things the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) is meant to control. I think MEP Yannakoudakis could have said "E-cigarette users failed by MEPs" but you know, wording choices aside, she's nailed it in a single tweet.

Because this is about class warfare first and foremost. Socialists want only one class of people -- that is to say everybody should be poor and dependent upon the State. The same goes for the Green party, which is really just an off-shoot of the Socialist party when you inspect them a bit more closely.

So why a menthol ban and why a slim cigarette ban?  Because a) poorer people and women tend to smoke menthol cigarettes in much greater numbers than other groups of people*, and b) because women smoke slim cigarettes. The goal of these bans is not to protect anybody's health but instead to take away your choices, to force you to conform to the will of the State along with the eradication of dozens of brands from the market, the latter being particularly important as it's part and parcel with plain packaging.

This is exactly what the Tobacco Control Industry (TCI) has been demanding for years, because TCI has always viewed women and the poor as weak and unable to think for themselves. Indeed, most of your elected representatives feel precisely the same way. The ruling class, which always thrives in a socialist state, will have you believe that all women, but particularly young, poor and/or pregnant women, are too gullible, too stupid, and too weak to be able to make their own choices, so MPs and MEPs choose to make women's choices for them.

(*Some of you might want to include racism as a reason for banning menthol cigarettes -- I don't know whether that's the case here. If it is, I would hardly be surprised, but I'm not going to make that claim, because I simply cannot say whether race is a factor.)

This is class warfare, people. This is all about controlling the poor, who (if the statistics are correct) smoke more cigarettes than the middle class or the upper class. Of course, it's also about making the poor even poorer. Because that's also an effective control tactic. If you have no money, if you spend more and more of your time working for the State to survive, then you are less able to rebel against your masters. It is also about hurting the tobacco industry, which, in the opinions of the socialists, tobacco control academics and many of your MPs and MEPs, is making too much money. Ultimately, it's about controlling all of us eventually, poor or rich.

I just thought I'd point all of that out, in case you didn't already know.

Now, back to the tweets shown above. Rebecca Taylor MEP's tweet indicates that the tobacco industry (presumably all of it) wanted this to happen. I have no doubt that some tobacco companies certainly did want e-cigs to be regulated as medical devices. Larger tobacco companies who are interested in developing their own e-cigs can afford any licensing and medical regulation schemes the Socialists can throw at 'em.  But  Taylor left it there -- she forgot who else would also benefit. So I called her out on that:

Rebecca Taylor MEP

All right, so she's only casually mentioning that the tobacco industry will benefit, not assigning blame. She also sent this tweet:

Rebecca Taylor MEP

Well, she did tweet a few times to the WHO's Twitter account. Was she "very critical"?  I don't think so. Here's one of them:

Rebecca Taylor MEP:
"@WHO do you want to encourage #ecig users to return #tobacco after stopping smoking? That would not be in the interests of #publichealth"

Oooh. You showed 'em, Rebecca.  I'd bet the WHO is absolutely smarting from that critical tweet! Like they care. But the point of selecting this tweet (and there were a couple of others) is to show you that Rebecca Taylor MEP supports Public Health primarily. And those who support Public Health are not your friends -- they never will be, even when they say or do things you agree with.  Rebecca Taylor is also anti-smoking and anti-tobacco, including using snus.  It took a lot of people commenting on her blog post and sending her evidence about vaping to get her on board to support e-cigs, but she wilfully turns her back on tobacco consumers. If you can get her to do what you want, vapers, great -- but trusting her, thinking that she's a friend ...?  That would be a huge mistake.  You've been warned.

As for Chris Davies MEP's tweet, well... I find statements such as his to be unnecessary hyperbole and I put it this way to him:

That's right. People will die regardless if they vape. Vaping isn't going to make you immortal, folks. No matter how much you think it might. Perhaps vapers think that they won't get cancer -- because, you know, cancer is that "bad death" that only smokers get. Think again. Any of us, smoker, non-smoker or vaper could get some kind of cancer, eventually. And apart from suicide, if any of us could choose what we die from, we would. But we cannot. So all of the "unnecessary deaths" will still happen, one way or another, by some cause or another. And if you eliminate one cause, there's another waiting for you.

So I have real difficult time understanding Chris Davies MEP's tweet that "people will die unnecessarily as a result" if they cannot vape. It's poor and sensationalised wording designed to inflame opinion, not inform. It's not even remotely true. E-cigarettes aren't going to save anybody's life. It's disingenuous to say they will. Statements like that are utter bullshit, actually.

At best, e-cigarettes "might" help to extend your life by a few years if you don't get lung or any other kind cancer (because, as we all know and have been told endlessly for decades, smoking causes all diseases and cancers and deaths, right? yeah?), but there's no guarantee that would ever happen. You might die from a stroke or a heart attack or getting hit by a bus, train, or a meteorite; you might die from a snake bite, or from a bee sting, or from a nasty virus or the common cold; you might freeze to death or burn in a fire; you might die in a plane crash or a terrorist attack; you might suffocate on your own vomit or your spouse might suffocate you with a pillow some night; you might get Alzheimer's or some other form of brain disease or dementia and forget who you are, forget where you are and maybe, just maybe, on a bad day, when somebody forgets to look after you, you could come to a sticky end by accidentally walking off a cliff or something...

Are any of those particularly good deaths?  What? You're hoping you'll die in your sleep?  That would be great. Wouldn't it? Doesn't happen that often, though. Nope. I know this, because my mother works as a nurse, in a care home for the elderly. We rarely go quiet into that good night... so, pleasant dreams, people.

It's time vapers abandoned the line of thought that suggests e-cigs will save your life. You are all -- all of you vapers and every last human on this planet -- going to die. Regardless. It is only a question of when -- you can spend the rest of your life, however long that may be, worrying about the "how" if you so desire. It's your life. Do what you like.

So. If you think that e-cigs are likely to extend your potential lifespan, then say that.

But stop fucking saying e-cigs will save lives, because they sure as hell won't.

I can guarantee that much.

A Little More Hypocrisy, If You Don't Mind

Last night on Twitter, I saw this campaign mentioned which is about reforming Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, that wacky and abused British law that says you can be arrested if you possibly disturb, upset, or offend someone.  It's called Reform Section 5 - Feel Free to Insult Me.

Naturally, I support the right to free speech, even offensive speech.  Do people really need to arrested for tweeting dumb-ass comments? Even despicable racist comments?  I hardly think so. Nobody has the right to not be offended.  Anyway, whilst perusing the campaign's site, I clicked through to its supporters page, as you do, and was dismayed to see that at least two MPs listed as supporting this reform 5 campaign are also known supporters of plain packaging. 

Stop. Hold up a moment, bruv, I said to myself.

We all know that proponents for plain packaging have dressed it up as a Public Health issue, to protect the gullible children and women, but what it really is about is whether tobacco companies have the right to package their products in the manner of their choosing. It's about speech. Free speech.

Now you can argue all you like that packaging is not a matter for free speech but I really don't see a difference.  Speech takes on many forms. A photo. A drawing. Verbal and written communication. A logo or trade mark.  A middle finger, or two fingers... that is speech.  A raised eyebrow or a frown ... that is also speech. Dropping trousers, bending over and mooning someone ... yeah, that's speech, too.  Anything that conveys an idea to another must be considered as speech. A packet of cigarettes, even.  You don't have to like it.

But it is all speech. In a truly free society, all speech must be protected.

Plain packaging, however, deliberately aims to suppress free speech for a particular commodity.  It additionally aims to suppress a consumer's ability to identify with that form of speech, if that consumer chooses to do so. We might call that brand identity. So plain packaging interferes with my ability to freely express myself by using a particular product, in much the same way that computer users identify as PC or Apple.

So about those MPs.  Have you met Fiona Bruce MP?  She appears on our Sheep-Minions page as a supporter of plain packaging. Fiona Bruce is also a hypocrite for supporting the Reform 5 campaign. She is quoted here on the supporters page as saying:

"I support the Reform Section 5 campaign because freedom of speech is one of the most precious – and fundamental – elements of a free society. Lose that and you risk losing a whole lot more."

Which is all well and good, but how on earth can she hold that view whilst simultaneously saying that tobacco companies and consumers of tobacco products do not have a right to free speech?  This is utterly hypocritical.

So I really cannot see how Fiona Bruce can glom onto a campaign espousing the virtues -- no, the right to freedom of speech for all if she's so willing to restrict the speech of certain others that she disagrees with.  But isn't that always the way? 

We also note that Sheep-Minion Caroline Lucas MP also appears as a supporter of the Reform Section 5 campaign.

No doubt there are many more lurking out there, pretending to care about free speech, so long as the speaker suits them, and it suits their political careers.

This is why I want to Vote Them All Out.  Let's ensure we do not forget these two hypocrites.

Meanwhile, if you want to view the Reform 5 campaign's latest video, you can watch it here. It's got music and everything.

Occupy LSX - You Missed

Unsurprisingly, the Occupy London Stock Exchange thing lasted only a few brief hours last night.  Without getting into the politics of it all, the Occupy thing is destined to fail no matter where you hold it.  There are lots of reasons for this, but the most important one, in my opinion, is that any successful revolution and occupation requires the real threat of force and violence at a minimum.  I am not suggesting that anyone should use force or violence, I'm just telling you how these things have actually worked in the past.  We're not talking about protests at universities here.  We're talking about a proper revolution.  Think what you like, but occupying LSX isn't going to change anything.  Ever.

You want to change the world for the better?  You need to get rid of the politicians who are screwing you over every day.  It is your politicians who are taking your money and giving it to the banks to prop them up instead of letting the banks fail.  It is your politicians who pass the laws that restrict your freedoms and civil liberties to support big businesses, who in turn support big, powerful governments.  So if you're going to occupy anything, you might consider:

Image via LondonVisitPlaces.com

Image via Oxford University

Or, if you prefer a more democratic route, you can Vote Them All Out.  I like the latter, personally.  No one gets harmed by violence and the career politicians, who are responsible for this dreadful mess we find ourselves in, are out of a job.  As they should be.

Vote Them All Out

One of the greatest dangers to a free society is the career politician.  Politics is often a nasty, petty business, filled with back-biting, childish taunts, and sensationalised propaganda unfit for even a schoolyard.  The mechanisms of "compromise" corrupt those who began their political careers with the very best of intentions, and even the most stalwart defenders of civil liberties and freedom may vote against their core beliefs and conscience in order to secure a victory for something else later.  It is almost unavoidable.  The longer one remains in politics, the more likely their integrity will be eroded.  Without genuine integrity to guide the politician's decisions, votes are likely to be ego-driven and self-aggrandising.  The career politician must toe the party line and curry favour with big businesses and special-interest groups. In return, the politician gains more power, greater influence and wealth.

Our democracy is representative, meaning that we voluntarily elect citizens to act on the people's behalf.  A true democracy, where every citizen has an equal voice and could vote freely on every issue, would be an impractical and logistical disaster for most every country and society.  And the honest truth is that most people simply cannot be bothered to care.  If someone else can do the job for them, all the better.  So we hire a few select citizens and grant them very special privileges to take care of all of the things that should keep society running smoothly.  In effect, we pay them to do our dirty work for us.

When you think about it, making decisions for vast swathes of the populace is an awesome responsibility.  It is not a duty that should be taken lightly.  Livelihoods are often at stake.  No one decision will please everyone and the politician should ideally proceed by weighing up the opinion of the majority and carefully considering the impact any given law will have on a minority.  Unfortunately, we find that the politician's responsibility has been delegated to party leaders with particular agendas at play.  The politician is told what to think, what to say, how to act, and how to vote on any given law or proposal.  The duty of being a politician for the people is therefore corrupted by the selfish interests of the few for short and long-term gains of the party.  Decisions are not made in the bests interests of the people, they are made for the best interests of the politicians we've elected, and they are too often made for special interest groups and big businesses which would profit by certain legislation.

On the other hand, what if every politician actually voted for what they and the people they represent believed?  If there were no parties to align oneself to, would chaos ensue during debates and votes?  Is the party system a necessary mechanism of politics in order to get things done as it were?  It probably is.  If all of the MPs were given equal time to debate every proposed regulation and law, allowing for rebuttals, and further rebuttals, it could likely take years before a vote occurred.  Nothing would be achieved efficiently. So the party system could be seen as a further representative device within government to delegate the authority of the many to the party leaders.  It's difficult to imagine a working system of government without a party system in place to speed things up a bit.

So if we want a somewhat functioning government (and I'll leave it to you to argue what that means), we should accept the limitations of a democracy.  Right? Can we do representative democracy better?  Is there another system that would ensure efficiency and integrity? I really do not know.

The real trouble isn't the party system despite its flaws.  The trouble is that we have people who make careers out of being politicians. Some stay in for life. I suppose it's easy to argue that experience with the system makes for a more effective politician; that the older pols will train the newer pols how to work within the system; that the contacts made over the course of many years are vital in greasing the wheels of democracy. The truth is that the system is gamed to reward those who stay in politics.  It is this way because all of the politicians in the past have set it up to be like that.  It's protectionism at a grand scale. Think of it as a labour union.  The job of the union is to protect as many of its members as possible.  And so it is with politics.

Because the system is gamed, there are no limits for how long a politician can remain in power.  And you can bet that very few of them would accept term limits. How many of us would accept being forced out of our jobs every five years, especially when we loved our work?  Probably none of us.  So our options are limited, but we can do something about it.

We vote them all out.  They need our votes to keep their jobs.  We should not give our votes to those who want to remain in office, regardless if they did a good job while serving.  Many, if not most, will become corrupted by the system, if they were not already corrupt to begin with.  We could use our power of democracy to enforce term limits on those who would seek to profit from their responsibilities.  We should vote them all out in put in new recruits at election time.  We could effectively limit the corruption to a short amount of time.  Since they won't change the system, we can try to do it for them. 

To me, it doesn't matter which party you want to vote for.  I view them all as pretty much the same with a few minor variations.  Just get rid of all of the politicians currently serving and start fresh, every time, because they have, every last one of them, let us down spectacularly.  I don't imagine that doing this will be the panacea for everything that is wrong with politics.  Indeed, I can already see a host of other problems that it would create.  But it's a start in a new direction.  By limiting the time they can serve in office, we can begin to limit the influence of special interest groups and big businesses who influence the debate unevenly and unfairly.  We can effectively end some of the cronyism and we can bring a little more integrity to our political systems.

One further caveat:  It does require that you begin to care.  Just a little more than you might already do.  I sincerely believe getting people to care will be the greatest hurdle of all.