What's in a name?
Friday, January 22, 2016 at 14:10 "It's not about health, it's about control."
I can't remember the first time I used that phrase – a long, long time ago, as Don McLean would say – but our opponents were listening, it seems.
A few years ago the Scottish Parliament's Cross Party Group on Tobacco Control changed its name to the CPG on Tobacco and Health.
If you're wondering why they bothered, papers recently released shed some light on the matter. In particular, a note submitted to the CPG on Tobacco Control AGM, dated October 30, 2012, reads:
Remit and Format of the Cross Party Group
We would like to suggest that we review the name of the Group – "CPG on Tobacco Control" – on the basis that while "tobacco control" is the familiar and accepted term for those working in the field, it might not be well understood by others who may even shy away from the word "control". We would like to suggest changing the name of the Group to "CPG on Tobacco and Health", which sounds positive, links to wider health interests and might encourage even more MSPs to engage with the Group.
Similarly the purpose of the Group is currently "To take forward an effective tobacco control agenda in Scotland" and we would like to suggest that "To benefit publish health through building political dialogue and collaboration to tackle the harm caused by tobacco use in Scotland" is again more positive and may be more appealing to other Members.
By the time the group met again, on May 2, 2013, the changes had been made and all mention of "control" had been removed.
Of course, you and I know that changing or deleting a word makes no difference to what drives public health activists to campaign for smoking bans, plain packaging, punitive taxation etc etc.
The motivation remains the same. The rest is spin, designed to make them look less authoritarian (and puritanical) than they really are.
But what we also know – thanks to this little titbit – is that public health campaigners are very sensitive about their portrayal and they don't want people using the 'c' word to describe their activities.
Not sure I can control myself, to be honest.
Reader Comments (7)
They like “prohibitionist” even less. And they are prohibitionists: Tobacco Control = prohibition.
Some are even talking openly about the eradication of tobacco use, i.e., prohibition, preferring to use the less loaded word “endgame”. Call them what they are – prohibitionists.
Would that "C' word be 'c*nts' by any chance?
Yes, it is all about social control. It certainly isn't about heath, although that is the public face (at least until they get traction). The health risks of smoking are exaggerated; the health risks from second hand smoke are fabricated.
The real danger is that they seek not just control but prohibition. They started with smoking and tobacco and are currently expanding their prohibitionist campaign to alcohol. Tobacco control must be exposed for the conspiracy against liberty that it is.
I would say it's gone even further than that. It isn't about control now, it is about smokerphobia and encouraging extremist reactions towards people who smoke by those who have been groomed to hate and fear smokers via politically motivated and manipulated junk science.
It certainly was once about health but that ended when anti-smokerism became an industry dependant on scaremongering for funds, jobs, and jollies at world conferences.
Why will the truth take 100 years to materialise for these career politicains, hell bent on filthy lucre, that they were wrong ?
Where does this obsession with words and names come from? Maybe it’s just that politicians, and those who support them in their wicked ways, are always about 5-10 years behind the general public. The internet has long exposed the Doublespeak used by politicians and their minions, so that most people now recognise that, when used by one of the public authorities: “to help” means “to force;” “investing” means “splashing out public money on;” “education” means “indoctrination,” etc etc.
Sometimes, when listening to all these “experts” using these terms, one can’t help but conjure up the image of a Bond-villain type, gently stroking a white Persian whilst fixing one with a steely stare and saying softly: “You vill give up smoking [or drinking, or whatever], Meester Bond – and ve are going to make very sure zat ve help you in every vay zat ve can – you can be certain of zat.” Creepy!
Yes these people will not give up. They are after tobacco prohibition now. They must be confronted and opposed all the time. They are anti-libertarian.