A page of references related to government and its regulatory attempts to block THR and any threat to cigarette sales.
People often refer to the nanny state, but where government in effect kills to enforce fiscal policy (for example, when it blocks ecigs in order to protect cigarette sales), the term 'bully state' is probably more appropriate.
1. Nanny State: Bad for Taxpayers, Public Health and your Freedoms
Dr Patrick Basham
2. C Snowdon on tobacco and alcohol taxes:
"Essentially the government is forcing the people who are least likely to live to extreme old age to pay for the escalating costs of an ageing population."
"The only significant effects that sin taxes have are to make the poor poorer and black marketeers richer."
3. Lots of interesting stuff on the fight against gov / corporate oppression:
1. One of the very few success stories: Croatia's anti-corruption agency USKOK - The Little Anti-Corruption Agency That Could
1. A very cogent argument for Brexit, from John Redwood
1. UK local government
Councils have financial conflict over cigarette stock investments:
The financial issues are straightforward:
a. Cigarette stocks perform well and get the best return for the local authority pension funds.
b. Staff who smoke will die early, thus saving costs for the pension fund.
However, there is a COI: the councils also receive central fund payments to reduce smoking, and by accepting such payments they have then assumed a duty of care to local residents (and staff). On the other hand, this COI is no different, of course, to the fundamental COI the government have while taking the huge financial returns and savings from smoking, and protecting it rigorously against any threat, while having a duty of care to the population by virtue of both governance and managing national healthcare. One might say, in that case, that government cannot object as it is in fact a worse offender; indeed it is not government who is protesting, it is Public Health. An independent observer might question why Public Health attacks local government on this issue when central government is by far the worse offender; perhaps it has something to do with funding for the Public Health industry, which comes from central government, and depends - ultimately - on smoking. Thus, the Public Health industry suffers from significant COIs, as (1) it can hardly attack its funders, and (2) will suffer significantly if the revenue source is successfully curtailed. No one votes to remove their own job.
1. Rodu: how NIH protects cigarette sales:
1. MHRA / pharma COIs:
Pointing out that essentially the MHRA andthe pharmaceutical industry are one and the same; not the ideal arrangement for a regulator.
2. Paul Flynn MP (Lab) claims that the MHRA lied to him:
3. Big Pharma: more conflicts of interest
D Atherton expands on why the MHRA is a pharma property
1. MSA payments start to slide, earlier than expected; ecigs will destroy the MSA payments, which is why US States and state Attorneys General need to ban ecigs (the States depend on MSA funds to prop up their economies and the AGs benefit personally from the MSA funds):
2. Why California needs you to smoke:
3. MSA payments 2014
1. Proportional regulation:
Regulation of cosmetics in the USA: Cosmetics do not require Food and Drug Administration approval before going on the market, but companies follow the guidelines of the independent Cosmetic Ingredient Review.
1. EU outlaws criticism:
"The European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties."
This will certainly help to suppress criticism of its officials, who in the health-related area are considered among the most murderously corrupt in the world, and who have become fabulously wealthy as a result. Dalli, for example, the EU ex-Health Commissioner sacked for corruption, (known as 'Bahamas Johnny' in his home country of Malta, allegedly for the location of his bank accounts) is thought to control a personal fortune of approaching $100m, a sum impossible to accrue from any legitimate employment on his record - alleged to have resulted from his successful maintenance of the ban on Snus, the blocking of THR in all forms including ecigs, and similar highly-profitable legislation to benefit large industries.