Monday, April 28, 2008

Anti-tobacco lies & more lies

In 1975, British delegate to the World Health Organization, Sir George Goober informed that august body of the means by which smokers could be encouraged to quit: “foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily” to secondhand smoke.

Note the use of the word “perceived”. It implies that the hazards of secondhand smoke didn’t have to exist; merely that the public perception that secondhand smoke was harmful to family, friends and co-workers had to be created.

Although anti-smoker activism has been with us for hundreds of years, they had failed miserably to coerce people into quitting the habit. Mostly, they failed because they attacked smokers on moral grounds or insisting on their right to be free of the “sickening stench” of tobacco.

But with Sir George’s dictum that it was the perception of harm, not the reality, that would be most advantageous in attaining the objective of coercing people to quit, the opposition to smoking took a different tack. True to form, the truth became the first casualty in the war about to be waged against smokers.

First the faulty methodology of the science, followed by the exaggeration and distortion of the science, eventually graduating into outright lies and propaganda.

Tobacco control became a growth industry shortly after Sir George’s address to WHO.

Non-smoker’s rights groups, smoke-free this-and-that groups, and others in the anti-smoker brigade saw funding opportunities increase in direct proportion to the lie, with those making the most outrageous claims often being the biggest benefactors.

Few of these groups are, in fact, grassroots movements. They are structured from the top down. They are, more often than not, funded by the pharmaceutical industry and taxpayer dollars filtered down from the usurious tax burden placed on smokers to force them to kick the habit. And, if they had to survive through member “donations”, they’d likely have to fold their tents and steal away like any other thief in the night.

The public has been indoctrinated to believe that evidence contrary to the propaganda spouted by the prohibitionists is the work of “tobacco stooges”, and not to be believed. The public is largely unaware that these “organizations” are funded largely through taxes imposed on the smoking public and funding provided by the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry.

They are wary of any studies funded by big tobacco, but readily accept the deceit of big pharma, because the information is processed through legitimate public health sources such as Health Canada, The Canadian Cancer Society and The Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion, among others. The problem, of course, is that even these organizations often receive substantial funding from the pharmaceutical giants.

The ultimate goal of the anti-smoker brigade is the outright prohibition of tobacco. Jim Watson (Ottawa-West Nepean MPP) declared his desire to make cigarettes illegal while serving as Ontario’s Minister of Health Promotion on April 9, 2006: "If I had my druthers I would not want to see tobacco anywhere in Canada….we know it kills people. If I had the ultimate authority to ban tobacco from the province or the country, of course I would."

Smokers themselves seem content to hang their heads in shame for choosing to use a perfectly legal product. They seem reluctant to fight back against what has become outright discrimination against smokers which would not be tolerated against any other minority group. They would do well to remember the words of Desiderada, “You are a child of the universe; you have a right to be here.”

This child of the universe chooses to smoke. No apologies.

Recommended Reading:
Passive Smoking: An Institutional Problem – Fabricated Risks Attributed to Passive Smoking. Click on the link: Forces International


Masonre said...

You can't seriously be suggesting that cigarettes are safe for you or others around you!

I'm a smoker myself and I'm certainly aware of the damage cigarettes have caused to my lungs after 'trying' to quit for about 3 weeks. When I stopped smoking it was much easier to breathe and smell...

I agree that the attacks on smoking are a little out there but cigarettes and smoking is bad let's not ignore the realities of wheezing, coughing, phlegm, etc..

The Old Rambler said...

Smoking may be bad for your health. So is smog, diesel exhaust, stress and hundreds of other things. Secondhand smoke has not been proven to be a serious health hazard to anyone. A preponderance of the evidence points the other way.

The attacks on smokers are more than “a little out there”. They're an unwarranted intrusion on personal liberty. If you're really interested in quitting, forget the crutches being pushed by the drug companies. Just google Why Quit. You'll find some great advice on quitting.

Anonymous said...

Now scientists are attacking some of the more extreme claims made by the anti-smoking movement: check out in which three professors give their reactions to ASH's anti-smoking health claims.

Ana said...

I will never understand how people are being lied and lost all sense of criticism.
Media is very powerful.
Thank you for your blog.
of course nobody is claiming that smoking is good for your health but not at the extent that is being said.
It is a moral issue and not a health issue anymore.
The pharmaceutical industry profits selling drugs to those who want, or are forced to to quit smoking.
I wish they campaigned about other serious problems.

Steven Peterse said...

the oldest person that ever lived died at age 122. She smoked for a hundred years. There seems to be plenty of evidence that smoking is good for people who have brain diseases. ie it slows down the progress of alzheimers. As for a 50% chance of dying from smoking that is grossly exaggerated. 60% of men die from violence of some kind and 40% of women. That means that men who smoke have a 110% chance of dying from violence and smoking. Its just ridiculous the extent that these lies about smoking have gone. What I can say though is smoke organic tobacco, you cough less and the relaxing effect is more potent.

Steven Peterse said...

the oldest person that lived, lived to a 122, she smoked for over a hundred years. As for the health benefits of smoking there are some. One major one is that it slows down degenerative brain diseases such as alzheimers. It also helps in mental health such as schizophrenia. As for the ill effects they are grossly exaggerated. You might die from smoking(even that is contested) but the fact remains you will certainly die. One thing i can say that since i started smoking organic tobacco I cough substantially less and the tobacco also has a much better relaxing effect than the stuff grown on superphosphates.