UK: ‘The Aim in the Long Run Is Prohibition.’

[highwindows]

The aim in the long run is to dictate and control every aspect of your life.

Now that technology gives them the means to know what you consume, how you act, what you buy, and who you talk to, things are gonna move in that direction fast, too.

In philosophy we call this new regime "biopolitics" or "biopower." Michel Foucault had a good grasp on what was coming when he was writing in the 1970s:

"A power that exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavours to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations."

Note that "positive" here does not mean good, but rather is opposed to simple acts of negation, such as prohibition. States today do not simply want to stop you from making certain choices, they want to make those choices for you. They will make you 'healthy.' A good little citizen, ready for decades of hard work with little to show for it at the end.

 

[Honkytonk Man]

What I said was do gooders don’t give a damn about ordinary people, who live their ordinary lives, and take a bit of comfort from a smoke and a drink.

Yet, they’ll legalize weed and let the poor get cheated on a legalized numbers racket.

The only people that are do gooders, can afford to be.

Amen, Lee.

 

[kcghost]

It is a sad state of affairs when prominent politicians openly admit they want to eliminate tobacco all together, That means that they have no fear of an electoral backlash. Sure, he only said cigarettes, but it is a very short step to "pipe tobacco can be used to make cigarettes" and "a cigar is just a thicker cigarette".

 

[georged]

In philosophy we call this new regime "biopolitics" or "biopower." Michel Foucault had a good grasp on what was coming when he was writing in the 1970s:

"A power that exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavours to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations."

Note that "positive" here does not mean good, but rather is opposed to simple acts of negation, such as prohibition. States today do not simply want to stop you from making certain choices, they want to make those choices for you. They will make you 'healthy.' A good little citizen, ready for decades of hard work with little to show for it at the end.

Authoritarianism has never come about overnight. Those who want to install it rely on being able to get away with taking a citizen's freedoms and rights in small increments because humans are hardwired to make concessions in small increments.

"It's not worth fighting over this small thing", is the thought process.

There's even a name for the zone that actions must stay in to be seen as "not worth fighting over": The Overton Window.

Moving the Overton Window is why so often singular incidents are played up repeatedly and incessantly. The objective is to establish a "new normal" in order to make the next demand to concede something seem more reasonable.

Rinse, repeat.

Finally, when people realize the TOTALITY of what they've conceded/allowed/given up/etc. and start to think it IS worth fighting over---it's too late. Doing so is literal suicide. So they once again stand down.

The biological mechanism that causes this response is as old as Man, and has been exploited since day one.

The funny-sad part is it's so powerful that people can't act differently even after understanding how the mechanism works and watching it happen around them in realtime.

 

[OverMountain]

Cannabis isn't evil or dangerous, but misinformation is.
I can surely see the hypocrisy in some states that allow cannabis smoking/vaporizing in public areas where tobacco use is banned.
However it seems to me, as pipe smokers and proponents of quality tobacco, our antagonist shouldn't be cannabis or it's users - instead the commercial cigarette industry of yesteryear that engaged in politics and meddled in medical research that has caused the contemporary backlash against Tobacco as a whole.

You bring up an interesting point about big tobacco. Now corporate talking points are largely about “lesser harm” products and the transition away from combustibles. Some of them even have high PC “ESG” ratings.

Briar Lee, I share your concern. The “green” of today is not of the 1970s. Psychosis is a real concern for chronic use among a myriad of other health issues.

 

[Papamique]

You bring up an interesting point about big tobacco. Now corporate talking points are largely about “lesser harm” products and the transition away from combustibles. Some of them even have high PC “ESG” ratings.

Briar Lee, I share your concern. The “green” of today is not of the 1970s. Psychosis is a real concern for chronic use among a myriad of other health issues.

Working in a hospital and mental health ward both I see the effects of the “new” marijuana first hand. CHS or Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome is showing up more and more, kids overdosing on “gummies” and “edibles”, fentanyl overdoses (added unsuspectingly to marijuana), and psychosis. Yet, you have to have a Lisence to sell a menthol cigarette.

*I smoked weed for decades before giving it up in 2001 and I don’t smoke menthol cigarettes

 

[vates]

Interesting. I noticed a trend that younger people started to publicly justify (cigarette) smoking. We may witness a turn of the tide soon.

 

[sablebrush52]

​

 

[PaulTheScandinavian]

Working in a hospital and mental health ward both I see the effects of the “new” marijuana first hand. CHS or Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome is showing up more and more, kids overdosing on “gummies” and “edibles”, fentanyl overdoses (added unsuspectingly to marijuana), and psychosis. Yet, you have to have a Lisence to sell a menthol cigarette.

*I smoked weed for decades before giving it up in 2001 and I don’t smoke menthol cigarettes

My mom told me the very same when she used to work at a rehab center here in Finland, so I have a hard time understanding those advocates of marijuana, it all seems like pure hypocrisy to me

 

[skydog]

In philosophy we call this new regime "biopolitics" or "biopower." Michel Foucault had a good grasp on what was coming when he was writing in the 1970s:

"A power that exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavours to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations."

Note that "positive" here does not mean good, but rather is opposed to simple acts of negation, such as prohibition. States today do not simply want to stop you from making certain choices, they want to make those choices for you. They will make you 'healthy.' A good little citizen, ready for decades of hard work with little to show for it at the end.

The logical end point of it all is self driving cars and government mandated diets. Statistically you're much more likely to die from car accidents or poor eating habits than you are anything else in this day and age. I don't doubt that will be the next goal if tobacco and alcohol are ever fully prohibited.

What is life if not for the little pleasures of some nicotine and whiskey or a dessert or the freedom to hop in your car and drive where you want. I'd rather live my life than be "protected" from myself so I can possibly eek out a few more boring years at the end. Let me live my life how I see fit, you never know I may just be one of those centenarians who enjoys some tobacco and a whiskey every day. But in the eyes of the authoritarians we must all give up anything that brings us joy for the sake of "the greater good."