Tuesday, 3 January 2012

Denying denial.

Not quite back to full speed but the healing qualities of the fry-up are starting to kick in. Good thing it's not taxed yet.

It won't be long. France now has a 'fat tax' on fizzy drinks which contain no fat. The tax is on the sugar. Oh, but it's just the fizzy drinks, nothing else, It's just a little bit of tax, you'll hardly notice it and it'll never increase, oh, no, and it won't spread to other foods, of course not.

Will it affect how fat people get? Of course not. If it did then the banmeisters' work would be finished and they wouldn't be able to say "It didn't go far enough. Next we have to..."

This is that one smoking carriage on the train. Those seatbelts that had to be fitted but wearing them was optional until every car had them. The first round of the ever-decreasing 'weekly permitted booze allocation'. It's a beginning, it is certainly not an end.

Look at that smoking ban. "Just in enclosed public spaces. We wouldn't extend it to outside, that would be silly".

"Just outside areas where children go."

"Just outside areas where children might go."

"Just outside areas. You're okay to smoke in your car."

"Just in cars with children, just in cars, never in your own home, but maybe in rented accomodation, and maybe we'll make it impossible for you to sell a house if you smoke..."

It never ends. They never stop. Nothing is ever enough. This little tax will grow and spread like ringworm right across the food industry.

I think though, this time, one company has finally worked out how the template functions.

Earlier this year Coca-Cola Enterprises slammed the tax proposal by suspending plans for a 17million euro investment at a plant in the south of France. 

 Not quite the usual roll-over-and-accept-it that the banmeisters are used to. Big Cola are going to be villified for it but I hope they stick to their guns. Even though I never drink the crap they sell, other people still have the right to buy it.

The normal rules apply here. Remember how, if you argued that you smoked because you liked it, you were 'in denial'? The Righteous don't like it therefore nobody could possibly like it therefore smokers only do it because they are addicted.

Then booze. In the habit of having a sherry once a day? You're addicted. Try claiming you just enjoy a sherry once a day and you are 'in denial'.

And now fat. The Righteous say you're fat. If you say you're not, there's nothing wrong with you, guess what? 

You will be told this through a smug grin by politicians, medics and fake-charity workers who are fatter than you because you're buying all their food. They will not realise the irony because these rules are for you, not them.

The worst part of the whole charade is that the Government is itself in denial. Denial that these taxes are for any other reason than to take more money from us. Petrol, booze, tobacco, food, they say they want us to moderate our use but if we all did that, their tax take would plummet. Really, they want the likes of ASH promoting smoking every day, the BMA drawing attention to those burgers and chips we might otherwise have overlooked, the Liver Lot telling us there's no point cutting back on the booze in January because the government needs the duty, and so on. Keep it in the public's mind so when they see it in the shops, they'll try it to see what the fuss is about.

Smoking rates were in decline before the current antsimoker frenzy. The surge in activity wasn't to finish off smoking, which was going out of fashion all on its own, but to boost its appeal.

You'll see occasional stories in the news about marijuana or cocaine or heroin but these are illegal, and attract no tax. You'll find three or four stories a week telling you how rebellious and anti-establishment smoking is and you will note that the term 'legal product' appears in every one. ASH didn't ban tobacco advertising. They took it over. The baccy income was in decline and they had to do something about that.

As with tobacco, petrol and booze, once the food-tax flow starts the government will not want it to stop. If everyone stopped drinking the fizz, the tax would move to crisps (fat and salt, so they're done for anyway) and while there will be fake-charities aplenty to tell us we shouldn't have these things, bans on when and where they can be consumed, plain packaging and warnings and an immense cupboard behind every shop counter with everything in it, nothing that is taxed will be formally banned. We'll just be paying extra tax to fund those who beat us up when we leave the shop.

It's all about keeping the tax flow going to fund the anti-everything brigade.

If they tell you any different, just tell them they're in denial.


Oldrightie said...

"If they tell you any different, just tell them they're in denial." which the silly bastards will deny!

Legiron said...

Just smile and keep saying 'in denial'. It'll drive them nuts.

Macheath said...

Food for thought....

BBC News, May 2009

A Chinese county has rescinded a rule urging its government workers to smoke more in order to boost tax income.
The authorities in Gong'an county had told civil servants and teachers to smoke 230,000 packs of the locally-made Hubei brand each year.
Those who did not smoke enough or used brands from other provinces or overseas faced being fined or even fired.

Bucko TheMoose said...

Ta for the link.
A relative was telling me over Christmas that she started smoking again after having quit for eight years. Her doctor was astounded (don't know how she knew) and asked her why.

He reply was that she enjoyed it too much. The doctor flat refused to beleive that anyone enjoys smoking. "No one enjoys smoking!" she said, "No one!"

In denial.

Rob F said...

I regularly down whole litres of mango, pineapple or orange juice (and apple juice too, even in the non-cider form), every day.

I must obviously be taxed because of the cost that I'm inflicting on the NHS from Fructose Abuse. I'd probably be acceptable if I were to start eating sprouts and lettuce sandwiches, and to stop smoking those horrible cigarettes. 

Going off at a tangent, but I couldn't believe this what I've just heard (maybe I shouldn't be surprised, though), but I have the TV on in the background.  It's showing the "Armstrong and Millar" show, and I just heard a warning to viewers that the show might contain bad language, (and something else I didn't catch but it was possibly violence), and wait for it...smoke piping.

Just checked, and it's on Channel 4 right now.  You might be able to catch the warning on C4OD (or whatever it's called).

Rob F said...

Or it might have been "smoking from pipes"!  What got me was the totally apologetic tone of the person doing the introduction.
Every close friend I grew up with in the 70s and 80s had at least one parent who smoked (my best mate's dad smoked a pipe for years) and they're lall fine).
I have mild asthma and allergy problems, but they're never to do with cigarette smoke (I smoke myself and have never had any problems with inhaling smoke directly); they're from exposure to things such as dog and cat hairs, or from suddenly entering a cold room from a hot room (eg), or vice-versa.
I recently applied to volunteer at Manchester Dogs' Home.  Isn't that completely crazy?  Shouldn't I be saved from myself by some clipboard-weilding weasel who's decided that to do that would not be conducive to my well-being or some such bollocks?
Not really, because I only ever have very mild symptoms and on those occasions that I do, the salbutumol or the antihystamines sort them out.  And anyway, I love dogs and it's my choice to take the risk of maybe suffering from a serious reaction one day.  No-one else's.  It's very unlikely to ever happen but if it does, then I claim responsibility.  No-one else should ever blame themselves for my actions.
They only support freedom when it falls within their parameters of what "freedom" actually means.

faustiesblog said...

The more independent we become of their 'services' (both government and corporations), the more their power will drain away, as ours grows.

Perhaps we should start thinking of ways to bring the likes of ASH down. Bringing to light the ridiculousness of their arguments via blogs such as yours, LI, certainly helps. But perhaps there's more that we can do.  We have to find their Achilles heel. We have to get between them and that on which they depend, and wreak havoc.

Edward B said...

How long before someone develops a "sugar free" fizzy drink?  Just add your own (untaxed) sugar at point of consumption.  Or to make it easier sell the sugar in appropriate sized sachets alongside the drink.

FrankC said...

If you really want to add sugar to a fizzy drink I recommend you do it outdoors wearing a wetsuit or similar.

Legiron said...

There used to be a contraption that would blast a mix of flavourings and water with CO2. I can't remember what it was called. It fell out of fashion, probably because fizz was so easily available that nobody needed to play with pressurised gases in their kitchen. Maybe it'll make a comeback.

I always wanted to try making dry ice with it, but nobody who had one would let me. In future I must remember to hang around with less sensible people.

Junican said...

We had one of those, LI - in fact I think that is is still around somewhere. But it was for a soda syphon.
You bought little canisters is compresssed CO2 and, using this little
machine to hold the canister in position, fastened the thing to the top of the syphon and the gas was released by puncturing the bottomof the canister.
I cannot see what I am typing becuas of this funny frey area. Hope it comes out ok.   

Legiron said...

The one I'm thinking of had an upright plastic shield with a large-ish cylinder in the back. You'd put a glass bottle of the mix behind the shield, pull a lever down to seal it and then press a button to blast the contents of the bottle.

It meant you could make a bottle of orange flavour, lemon flavour, any flavour fizz.

The flavourings were, I'm sure, stuffed full of sugar but I never checked.

Zaph Camden said...

I believe the thing you're thinking of was that icon of a 1970s childhood, the "SodaStream" :)

BTW, happy new year mate. Been reading this blog since…ooh, ages. Long may it continue.

Junican said...

Whatever, LI. But once again we see the purerile attitiude of politicians. All their reactions are 'knee jerk' reactions - soundbite reactions. What we need is a politician (preferably someone who is actually a Minister) to shout very loudly, "This condition affects only a very small number of people. There is no need for the Goverment to take action" Why can't they do that? For example, of all the millions of people who enjoy alcohol, only a minute proportion become alcoholics.  It makes no sense, therefore, to increase the price of alcohol FOR EVERYONE on the off-chance that one or two persons might not become alcoholics. Better to treat the alcoholics, n'est pas?  

Legiron said...

Sodastream - Now you say it I can see the logo. A gadget with potential for tinkering but nobody who had one would let me.

Legiron said...

Ah, but you're talking sense. No career in politics for you.

Legiron said...

'Those who did not smoke enough'... as a smoker, before the ban I would have been horrified. Now it's hilarious.

Legiron said...

I get a flu-like reaction to cats but it's not a problem because cats don't like me anyway. Perhaps I should insist that all cats are removed before I visit peoples' homes?

If they want to pet their cats, it's not much of a chore to take seven steps outside before they do it, surely?

Legiron said...

Oh I forgot. Cats steal the breath from sleeping children. Everyone must be warned!

Pogo said...

I remember those... My parents had one. We kids discovered that if you covered the little canisters of CO2 with builder's mastic and lit it, they eventually exploded with a most satisfying bang!  :-)

opinions powered by SendLove.to