Google analytics

Thursday, 12 March 2015

That slippery slope that doesn’t exist?


Like a soft drink do you? Well get ready to be de-humanised for it over the next few years.

Smokers such as myself have already experienced it. But is only just starting for the lovers of soft drinks.

For smokers it first started with colossal rises in tax on tobacco products.

Guess what, soft drink lovers, it's going to happen to you in the near future.

Thousands of cases of diabetes and cancer could be avoided, saving the NHS £300million, by putting a health tax of 12p a can on sugary drinks, it is claimed. (My bold: They don’t actually know)

Academics have calculated the likely reduction in consumption caused by putting up the price of full sugar drinks like Coca-Cola and Pepsi and the resulting health benefits.

The work by experts at the University of Liverpool and the Children’s Food Campaign will fuel the growing campaign to extend the principle of a duty on unhealthy products from cigarettes and alcohol to some types of drink and food.

The start of your fall from grace begins there. They actually admit to wishing to follow the tobacco control template

Health campaigners and doctors have controversially likened sugar and its contribution to obesity and ill-health as the ‘new tobacco’.

Next will be horrendous images of diseased kidneys, rotting teeth, and pictures of ill people in bed  covering your can of delight.

The next step will be to of course will continue with fizzy pop being hidden behind screens for “THE SAKE OF THE CHEEEELDREN”.

You tell me what comes next….



  1. You still don't fucking get it do you - most people don't give a shit if you smoke and as a result damage your own health, whet we don't want is you doing it near us, forcing us to breathe in your first and second hand smoke and making our clothes smell, just to name two side-effects of your addiction. Drinking high sugar soft drinks only harms the drinker - there are no secondary effects.

    1. You sound like a rabid neurotic antismoking bigot. They’ve been around for centuries.

      Antismoking isn’t new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of it predating even the pretense of a scientific basis or the more recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”. Antismoking crusades (i.e., prohibition) typically run on inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and bigotry. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale; they promote hysteria and a bigotry bandwagon.

      For a brief history of antismoking, particularly American, see:
      “Cigarette Wars: The ‘Triumph’ of the Little White Slaver” (1998) by Cassandra Tate. Google the following combination - “the endless war on tobacco” “seattletimes” – which should bring up a summary article of the book at the Seattle Times.

      Gordon L. Dillow (1981), “Thank You for Not Smoking” [The Hundred-Year War Against the Cigarette]

    2. "Drinking high sugar soft drinks only harms the drinker - there are no secondary effects."

      So my having to pay for their rotting teeth via my NI contributions is not a secondary effect then?

  2. In other news, recent guesses are that for every year longer 'those who would have died earlier via diabetes' are costing the NHS £40,000 per year extra. Enough to subsidise 160,000 cans of coke each.

  3. Could the rise in type 2 diabetes in over 50's be caused by statins?

    This really would be an own goal by the NHS.



Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.