Smokes and mirrors

After a very busy time sensitive news cycle, my latest op-ed has been published on Quadrant Online:

Of the three major Gillard government initiatives – carbon tax, mining tax, and plain packaging – only the plain packaging policy is not slated for repeal. It should be. It isn’t — yet supporters have been waging an impressive campaign to maintain the policy.

It is clear that the health lobby believe the optimal rate of tobacco consumption is zero and is happy to achieve that outcome at any cost. Nowhere else in public policy do we pursue such single-minded policy goals. We might like to live in a world where there is no crime – but everyone understands the costs of achieving such an outcome far outweigh the benefits.

Read the whole thing.

This entry was posted in Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Smokes and mirrors

  1. Angus Bkack

    It is beyond me why you care so much about plain packaging for cigarettes. It may have worked or, more likely, it may not. In the scheme if things, it strikes me as about as important as gay marriage – that is, not at all.

    We are living at a time reminiscent, in so many ways, of the prelude to both WW1and WW2, the Middle East is in total turmoil and our own civilisation is threatened by globalised militant Islam; Putin seems intent on reigniting (?) the Cold War; Obama is asleep at the wheel (the tee?); and there is the threat of out-of-control Ebola. And all the things that slip my mind for the moment.

    Sense of proportion, anyone?

  2. Angus Bkack

    …and, I forgot, even more critical: there is a real chance the Eagles will not play September footy!

  3. Sinclair Davidson

    Take care of the pennies and the pounds take care of themselves.

  4. Infidel Tiger

    Angus, if the world is going to shit, I want to be able to smoke on the battlefield.

  5. MACK1

    Cost-benefit? How very 20th century. That concept has been surpassed in the minds of “progressive” thinkers by the precautionary principle. This means that any idea from the Green Left must be implemented, regardless of the impact on those who actually pay tax, or the size of the deficit. And any politically incorrect project, such a new road, must be stopped in case a worm is murdered.

  6. Rabz

    Nowhere else in public policy do we pursue such single-minded policy goals.

    What about the road toll? I’d argue these obnoxious, puritanical busybodies would like to see the road toll reduced to zero as well – a similarly impossible goal – and if you think they’re going to allow driverless cars with out a fight, you’re dreaming. After all, their ultimate goal is to outlaw the private car.

  7. Ant

    Yet many if not most if not all of the anti-smoking lobby are gung-ho for marijuana smoking.

    And, given the opportunity, would legalise it and grow it at an industrial scale and hand it out free on street corners, in schools, kindergartens, child care centres and the baby nurseries in maternity wards all over the land.

  8. Bruce of Newcastle

    Look on the bright side. When the authorities catch some of the flood of illegally smuggled cigarettes, coming in because of the PPL and excise rises, they can do like the UK does:

    UK Burns Illegal Cigarettes In Power Plant

    British authorities are planning to burn 8.5 million illegal cigarettes to produce power for the National Grid, according to the Daily Mail. The cigarettes were seized after an inspection of a container from Malaysia that was supposed to contain fabric.

    I’m sure you could get renewable energy certificates for doing this, which is a nice example of Blair’s Law.

  9. Tim Neilson

    Angus Bkack
    #1413803, posted on August 12, 2014 at 10:58 am
    It matters. See the link below to Mark Steyn as to why.
    Remember that the “progressives” will fight tooth and nail to the very last cent of taxpayers’ money to defend anything they’ve won or to claim anything they want. Like when the Howard government announced that Arts funding would increase only in line with inflation and there were luvvie protests comparing them with the Nazis. We need to get out of the habit of conceding minor points. They’ll just keep taking those minor points one at a time until the idea of total micro-management of citizens’ lives becomes completely normalised. (If that hasn’t happened already here, as it seems to have in the USA.)

  10. .

    There is a small benefit attached to smoking at low levels. The health fascists try to pretend the data showing this phenomena doesn’t exist.

  11. It is clear that the health lobby believe the optimal rate of tobacco consumption is zero and is happy to achieve that outcome at any cost.

    No, they aren’t. If they were, they’d just make it illegal, or try to. Just a bunch of wowsers worried that someone, somewhere, may be having a good time.

  12. Angus Black

    Tiger, Tim:

    Well this seems to me to totally unimportant because the laws don’t interfer with my freedom of action at all. I can still smoke, if I wish; I can still identify a specific brand of cigarette and buy them.

    These laws interfere, in essence, with the cigarette companies’ ability to advertise their products in a particular way. Yes, I suppose they have lost some freedom but, shoot me, I just don’t care about them.

    If you want to think about some minor freedoms lost which, perhaps, do matter: mandated cycle helmets (not only do no measurable good, but actually do harm by reducing exercise undertaken and thus health); mandated pool fencing (saves at most 3-4 lives per year – just check the ABS figures on drownings and look to see (a) where people drown and (b) which people drown in pools … basically almost the only people drowning in pools (ever) are heart attack victims!) – at almost transcendental cost)

    Anyway, to the point, I can’t think of a less tangible loss of freedom for the population at large than that of mandating the packaging on cigarettes.

  13. Angus Black

    I should say, I’m not in favour of plain packaging of cigarettes … its the (un-)importance of the issue I’m trying to highlight.

  14. Diogenes

    Angus,
    as a cigar (and occassional pipe) smoker I disagree. All my favorites have disappeared – its not worth the manufacturer creating special packaging for the aussie market – the packaging includes the tube so I am reduced to smoking the equivalent of “old rope” in comparison (amandas, shorts etc)

    My favorite pipe tobacco no longer is sold. Whilst I object to paying the tobacco excise, I am happy to pay as long as I can the product I want.

  15. Leigh Lowe

    It is beyond me why you care so much about plain packaging for cigarettes. It may have worked or, more likely, it may not. In the scheme if things, it strikes me as about as important as gay marriage – that is, not at all.

    +1 Angus.
    I really don’t give a shit and don’t know why it exercises everyone around here so much.

  16. Infidel Tiger

    I really don’t give a shit and don’t know why it exercises everyone around here so much.

    Freedom motherfucker. Love it or leave.

  17. Leigh Lowe

    Cough, cough, splutter, cough, spit.

  18. .

    Freedom motherfucker. Love it or leave.

    But arrest those who call to Muslim prayer? People around here are losing their marbles.

  19. Tim Neilson

    Diogenes is right. Someone has to pay for the special wrap arounds on pipe tobacco imported by the pouch* – the wrap arounds that tell you how evil cigarette or cigar smoking is – and guess who that is?
    On the other hand I’m not “happy” to pay excise at a rate that’s way in excess of the costs to society of my choices, when I’m already buying the product out of after tax income and funding the GST.
    *If, as Diogenes says, the manufacturers think that the market will bear the price hike at all.

  20. Sinclair Davidson

    Love it or leave.

    IT – you’re getting soft.

    Freedom – love it or die.

    :)

  21. Bruce of Newcastle #1413833, posted on August 12, 2014 at 11:28 am

    UK Burns Illegal Cigarettes In Power Plant

    There is an unhealthy connection between green energy and ovens to provide final solutions

  22. Leigh Lowe

    There are bigger issues than defending the rights of losers to commit slow-motion suicide from a multi-coloured packet, rather than a drab-olive packet.

  23. Mike P

    So when they put your favorite brand of fat, sugar, or alcohol in drab green packaging will you care then?

  24. Senile Old Guy

    There are bigger issues than defending the rights of losers to commit slow-motion suicide from a multi-coloured packet, rather than a drab-olive packet.

    It’s a slippery slope issue. Read the latest at Velvet Glove and you may realise that the public health bandwagon will just move on to the next target.

  25. manalive

    … as a cigar (and occassional pipe) smoker I disagree …

    Pipes, they were a great accoutrement for the gentleman of distinction.
    You could gesticulate with one pointing out some interesting feature or stab the air with one to emphasise a point or simply puff quietly on one signifying deep thought while considering another’s argument. Then there was the ritual of filling the pipe from the soft leather pouch after emptying it by gently tapping it on the heel of your shoe.

  26. Leigh Lowe

    So when they put your favorite brand of fat, sugar, or alcohol in drab green packaging will you care then?

    Nup.
    Don’t care.
    Although, there is a safe level of fat, sugar and alcohol intake.
    Not so with smokes.

  27. Tim Neilson

    Leigh Lowe
    #1414048, posted on August 12, 2014 at 2:35 pm
    I think it was Ann Coulter who wrote that when some nanny stater tries to justify banning something with the argument “well why does anyone need to…”, the correct answer is “none of your f#<&ing business".

  28. Leo G

    “It is clear that the health lobby believe the optimal rate of tobacco consumption is zero and is happy to achieve that outcome at any cost.”

    “No, they aren’t. If they were, they’d just make it illegal, or try to. Just a bunch of wowsers worried that someone, somewhere, may be having a good time.”

    I rather thought the motivation was self-righteous greed. Those wowsers are rentseekers, who don’t appear to want an unsafe drug delivery system banned, but want it stigmatised so that unrestrained taxation of its users is not condemned, and want from cigarette sales that government revenue exceeds private profits.

  29. Dr. Sir Fred Lenin

    Manalive ,I can still remember the great smell of my Dads pipe tobacco,even as a kid I loved that smell , much nicer than cigarettes.I also remeber the smell of Gauloises,and Gitanes,really powerfull ,the only decent smelling French cigarette was Gauloise Maryland ,a Virginian tobacco ,that had a pipe like smell.

  30. Leigh, how about the right of ownership of a brand that has cost the company millions to build?
    It’s another slippery slope issue.
    “….first they came for the Jews…”

  31. stackja

    Winston Smith
    #1414317, posted on August 12, 2014 at 6:16 pm
    Leigh, how about the right of ownership of a brand that has cost the company millions to build?
    It’s another slippery slope issue.
    “….first they came for the Jews…”

    Left wants to destroy private enterprise. First alcohol then smoking etc.

  32. stackja

    Seems apt:

    Liberty Quotes
    Hitler’s Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research helped calculate the “national economic cost of smoking”. But its figures were probably as fraudulent as those routinely concocted today.
    — Adam Crieghton

  33. Diogenes

    So when they put your favorite brand of fat, sugar, or alcohol in drab green packaging will you care then?

    Nup.
    Don’t care.
    Although, there is a safe level of fat, sugar and alcohol intake.
    Not so with smokes.

    Well you probably dont want to go anywhere near the exhaust of any vehicle – especially diesel. No safe levels of the particulates they produce.

  34. Some History

    It is beyond me why you care so much about plain packaging for cigarettes.

    Angus, it’s not just this singular issue of PP. It’s PP as one in a long series of masqueraded, vulgar, “de-normalizing”, prohibitionist steps.

    The current antismoking crusade has been a prohibition crusade from the outset in the 1970s. In the 1970s there were very, very few interested in prohibition, particularly in relatively free countries. Seeing their prohibition crusade stalling in the late-1970s, the prohibitionists shifted the focus to secondhand smoke “danger”. With this concocted “danger”, the prohibitionists squealed that they weren’t doing “prohibition”, that they were only wanting to protect nonsmokers from SHS “danger”. That’s a lie that’s been told many times over during the last few decades – see Godber Blueprint http://www.raqmpant-antismoking.com .

    Now somewhere between the early-80s and the last decade antismoking has been manufactured into a societal ideal. The legislature and societies have been manipulated to an extreme – prohibition – that only a few decades ago was viewed as repugnant. Critical insight has been lost on a mass scale. From tiny beginnings in the 1970s, antismoking is now a genuinely global[ist] endeavour. Most countries are signed up to the [prohibitionist] WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that requires a particular set of prohibitionist steps to be taken. The World Bank, the EU and the OECD, along with mega-wealth “philanthropy” (e.g., Bloomberg), fully support the WHO FCTC. It’s a closed propaganda loop that’s overthrowing the sovereignty of individual nations.

  35. Some History

    Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.

    The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
    Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

    While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.

    On top of all of this, there are now instances where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate taxes.

    At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing “social engineering” (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies peddling their useless “nicotine replacement” products. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American “model”) and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).

  36. Some History

    the Middle East is in total turmoil and our own civilisation is threatened by globalised militant Islam; Putin seems intent on reigniting (?) the Cold War; Obama is asleep at the wheel (the tee?); and there is the threat of out-of-control Ebola.

    There are messes all over. But in these messes antismoking reigns supreme. Why? Putin has just introduced draconian antismoking measures in Russia. The Obama admin is rabidly antismoking, having pumped billions of dollars into antismoking measures in America. Then look at ISIS (now IS). We have bloodthirsty murderers that are also rabid antismoking activists, instituting a complete (everywhere) ban on smoking with brutal fervor ….. for the “good” (at gunpoint) of their captors, of course…. for a “healthy” society:
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/13/jihadi-militants-ban-smoking-and-guns-in-conquered-territories/#ixzz34cdxaMGD

    The bonfire disposal of cigarettes is a nice tyrannical touch. And it’s not an isolated incident. There are similar bans and bonfires (and guns) in Africa.

    Antismoking is “anti”; it’s an extreme, prohibitionist view. It’s always a symptom of a dictatorial mindset. The only issue then is the magnitude of coercive measures. With ISIS, a brutal bunch, people are ordered not to smoke under threat of having fingers and ears lopped off, if not worse. In the less brutal West, for example, the punitive measures are more “civilized”, consisting of inflammatory propaganda concerning the “risks” of secondary smoke to nonsmokers, pitting a majority against a minority, ostracizing/de-normalizing smoking from normal, mainstream society, the depiction of smokers as a “leper” class that contaminate the “clean”, fleecing smokers through baseless, extortionate taxes.

    Also Iran nixes smoking for executive aspirants

    Tehran, Iran (CNN) — Want a job in Iran’s executive branch? Quit smoking.

    People addicted to tobacco cannot get jobs with the government’s executive branch, according to the semi-official Iranian Labour News Agency, which cited a directive published Monday by the Cabinet’s information office.
    The directive — intended to ensure that applicants are healthy physically and mentally — follows the guidelines of the Law of the National Services Management, ILNA reported.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/19/iran.tobacco.jobs/

  37. Combine Dave

    Well you probably dont want to go anywhere near the exhaust of any vehicle – especially diesel. No safe levels of the particulates they produce

    Electric cars powered by cool clean nuclear power. You know it makes sense.

  38. Some History

    The current antismoking crusade is a continuation of eugenics antismoking of early last century. Antismoking is but a symptom of a dictatorial mindset/framework.

    The root of the problem

    The problem lies in what is understood by “health”.

    Consider the World Health Organization’s definition of health instituted in 1948:
    The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health in its preamble as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being.” [This definition used to appear on the WHO home page. At some time over the last few years it’s disappeared from this high visibility position]

    Notwithstanding a few questionable concepts such as “complete”, we can be sure that this definition was a direct result of the horrors of Nazi eugenics. Whatever was directed at Nazi eugenics was also directed at American eugenics. Eugenics is biologically reductionist (materialist/physicalist) or, as noted by the Nazis, “applied biology”. The WHO definition attempts to account for the fact that health is more that just absence of disease, more than just a biological phenomenon. It involves other dimensions such as psychological and social.

    Given that this WHO definition was put into circulation by Brock Chisholm, the first director of the WHO and a eugenicist, there is always a suspicion as to how the WHO, a medical organization, could potentially warp this definition in the long-term. It could have been an “appeasing” definition, given the anti-eugenics sentiment of the time. (From my understanding, the “mental” and “social” well-being aspects were a last-minute inclusion).

    However, what should be noted is the limited scope of the WHO. It does not have a monopoly on health. Being a medical organization, it is intimately bound to the biological level. It is not really a world health organization but a world medical organization – a global medical headquarters. It would have to accept that there are aspects of health that are not its domain or jurisdiction. Just this idea, properly applied, should discourage potentially destructive ventures into social engineering as was seen in eugenics early last century. The same can be said of government, that there are aspects of health that are none of its business. In relatively free societies persons are free to pursue happiness along variable combinations of the dimensions of health where the pursuit does not infringe on others. For example, a person who smokes derives some utility from the act, and they continue to smoke in a particular set of priorities along these multi dimensions that vary from person to person.

    Yet with all this history, as we have seen over the last half century, particularly pertaining to antismoking, the WHO and the medical establishment generally, and contrary to the WHO’s very own definition of health, have deteriorated back into a biological reductionist view of health and ventures into social engineering.

    Over the last half century, health has been reduced to biology with an emphasis on the behavioral dimension of eugenics – anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, prescribed diet, and physical exercise. The WHO adopted antismoking as a societal ideal many decades ago (Godber Blueprint) and now most nations are signed-up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. With this ideological stance comes social engineering, i.e., coercion to conformity.

    Anyone that truly grasped the multi-dimensional definition of health above would not even contemplate, let alone enact, the idea of “denormalizing” a group, this being an assault on psychological and social health (with physical health ramifications). But physicalists have no such grasp. And it’s physicalists that have set the current “healthist” craze in motion. The very conduct that the WHO definition of health was supposed to guard against has again been unleashed by the very promoters of the definition. The circumstance is utterly perverse.

    We have seen smoking bans on hospital grounds where patients have to venture considerable distances in night-attire and in all manner of weather to have a cigarette. This becomes a psychological and social health issue, in addition to the physical health issue. Indoor smoking bans with no prospect of accommodation have alienated particularly the elderly. This is a psychological and social health issue. Denormalization, a repugnant, vulgar concept very much identified with eugenics, has again come to the fore. Smokers have been incessantly slandered, ridiculed, and terrorized by official, government programs of denormalization, i.e., hate campaign. This is a psychological and social health issue. Robbing smokers through compounded extortionate taxes, further impoverishing them and imposed under false pretenses, is a multi-dimensional health issue. Many nonsmokers have been manipulated into irrational fear and bigotry to advance the ideological cause. This is an issue of psychological and social health. Smokers are being bullied out of normal social life on a purely ideological basis. This is an issue of psychological and social health. With this propaganda barrage, medical care professionals are demonstrating a cruel, bigoted streak – again – that can compromise the medical treatment of those who smoke. This is an issue of psychological, social, and physical health. Not only are psychological and social health issues important in their own right, but these can also have detrimental ramifications for physical health. Health has again been reduced to incoherent quantification, dollar cost-benefit analyses, another eugenics trait. All of these detrimental consequences inflicted by ideology under medical authority is iatrogenic.

    Everywhere we turn health has again been perversely reduced to only a biological phenomenon (e.g., behavioral) and with the [eugenics] intent of social engineering. Public Health has been hijacked by the “medical model”. Once again the medically-aligned have monopolized health. It is now commonplace to hear that draconian measures that invade personal autonomy have been instituted for a “healthier society” according to physicalism. “Get healthy”, “he’s looking after himself”, “I work out” all pertain to physicalism. In the obsession with the physical state, psychological, social, moral, and ideo-political aspects of health have been brutalized and discarded – again. And it is the WHO that leads this assault.

  39. Some History

    The WHO is a world medical organization posing as a [total] “health” organization. Yet, medicine does not have a monopoly on health – this was supposed to be the lesson learned from early last century. It’s obvious from the global antismoking hysteria that’s been produced by this organization that its bureaucrats are clueless as to psychological and social health. The organization should be renamed the World Medical Organization and fully cognizant of the severe limitations of the medical model.

    Also problematic are Public Health courses, e.g., Master of Public Health. University Public Health Departments around the developed world are run under the auspices of Medical Faculties. This, too, is inviting disaster. What is taught in PH courses is dominated by physicalism and the “medical model”. It should come as no surprise that psychological and social dimensions have been jettisoned, with health again reduced to biology and disease fixation. Public Health Departments need to be removed from Medical Faculties and operate as multi-dimensional, stand-alone entities and where their major interest is keeping fanatics/zealots at bay.

    And, so, we’re right back to the perverse definition of health (biological reductionism) that was prevalent in the “healthy living” hysteria (eugenics) of a century ago with nothing of value learned, a situation that the WHO definition of health (1948) was supposed to guard against.

    The WHO definition of health somewhere on its website:
    http://www.who.int/suggestions/faq/en/index.html
    http://who.int/about/definition/en/print.html

  40. Some History

    Contemporary antismoking is social engineering by a medically-aligned elite. It’s the attempt at mass behavior modification using the standard techniques of inflammatory propaganda.

    Can we imagine what would have happened if returning troops from WWII were confronted with…… we (the medically-aligned) believe we run society according to our ideological proclivities. We are embarking on a mass behaviour modification crusade to get people to stop smoking. We demand you stop smoking. If you don’t stop smoking, we will turn you into social pariahs and fleece you through extortionate taxes.

    I suspect that the social engineers would have been tossed in the nearest river for some refreshment. The whole idea of coming out of war was to be freed of these dictators who want their noses in everyone’s affairs, where individuals are the property of the State. A critical foundation of relatively free societies was the idea of individual autonomy. Individuals are free not to be reduced to some “quantification” in a group “cost-benefit” analysis by a framework (physicalist) that is missing most of the dimensions that peculiarly account for the human experience.

    Yet, we seem to have lost this critical insight. The medically-aligned social engineers now have direct access to the legislature without a peep of protest.

  41. Combine Dave

    There are bigger issues than defending the rights of losers to commit slow-motion suicide from a multi-coloured packet, rather than a drab-olive packet.

    Agreed.

    But arrest those who call to Muslim prayer?

    Isn’t noise polution illegal? Why can some entrants obey Australia’s (albeit shitty) laws and others can not?

  42. Some History

    There are bigger issues than defending the rights of losers to commit slow-motion suicide from a multi-coloured packet, rather than a drab-olive packet.

    Leigh, you’re a “success story” of 3 decades of State-sponsored inflammatory propaganda. You’re a raving bigot…. an antismoking disciple…. enthusiastically riding the bandwagon. You should be proud.

  43. Angus Black

    Sorry guys, still don’t give a rats.

    There are lots of issues which meaningfully impinge on your (our) freedom. Start with the important and work down the list. You’ll be old and grey before you get to tobacco packaging laws.

    Meantime, by all means, smoke anywhere you like, as much as you like, so long as I don’t have to breath your smoke too. Given where I live, however, that’s pretty much anywhere at all, for all practical purposes.

  44. .

    There are lots of issues which meaningfully impinge on your (our) freedom.

    They are all important.

    Imagine being sent to prison for not following a no smoking sign in an open area with plenty of particulate pollution for example.

    It is possible under our laws, and shouldn’t be.

  45. Angus Black

    They are not all equally important. The characteristic problem will all extreme positions is a lack of sense of proportion.

    Relax, deep breath, think…

Comments are closed.