I was doing a rare browse of Twitter last night.
One “tweet” popped up from that Tobacco Control Industry party they are holding in South Africa. It contained the usual abbreviations but the gist of it was about “successfully meeting challenges of imp to fulfil the FCTC objective to “protect present & future generations from the devastating health,social,envr&economic consequences of tobacco consumption & exposure to tob”“.
Now I dont know what “imp” is [implement? Imperial Tobacco?] but the bit that stuck out was the second half – devastating health,social,envr&economic consequences of tobacco consumption & exposure to tob [tobacco?]
Devastating? Hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes and tsunamis are devastating. I think we are just a little over the top here?
Let’s go through them to see how the devastation sits with each area.
Health: Well, the jury is still out on this one. Some say tobacco is injurious to health while others say not. Whichever though, to say there are devastating consequences to health is about as extreme as you can get. I could argue that pharmaceutical products can be just as “devastating”.
Social: What the fuck? There are few as anti-social as Tobacco Control. They have decimated the social life on this island and in other countries by closing pubs, clubs, bingo halls and the like. They have caused widespread isolation particularly amongst the older folk who can no longer meet up outside their homes. Or are they referring to people being annoyed by wisp of cigarette smoke? I am frankly a bit bemused by this one.
Envr: I’ll assume that’s “environmental”? This is another confusing one. Are they talking about cigarette butts? Are they talking about the amount of land dedicated to growing tobacco? If the former, that that’s hardly a justification for a world wide pogrom against smokers. Personally I find chewing gum more of a pollutant. If the latter, and they seriously want to stop tobacco growth because it takes up too much land, then I would suggest they also demand the shutting down of all cereal and grain farms which take up far more land. If you’ll pardon the pun, they are really clutching at straws here.
Economic: Ah! The old “cost to the health services” invention! As has been repeated many many times, this is pure bollox! Smokers contribute massively over their weight in taxes. Certainly they contribute far more than any costs that may accrue. If we are to believe Tobacco Control’s propaganda then half of all smokers will die “early” [whatever that means] thereby saving the state a fortune in pensions, care of the elderly and hospital admissions.
The thing that baffles me the most is the frame of mind of someone who will publish such language. Are they really so obsessed with their little mantras that they actually believe all this shite? There are so many evils in this world but they have to go on about a bit of smouldering leaf? They actually carry on as if tobacco was worse than a nuclear holocaust.
Or are they just trying to garner support from the public for their little jolly in South Africa at out expense?