OK. That didn’t take long.
A US Senator from New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg, wants the US Food and Drug Administration to ban electronic “cigarettes”. The Senator claims he is concerned about the safety of the e-cig. His concern, of course, is not likely to be coloured by the fact his 2008 election campaign received $128,000 in donations from the pharmaceutical industry.
However, it is understandable that some people might think he is merely trying to protect his benefactors from the competition. After all, they make hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the sale of alternate nicotine delivery systems like Nicorettes, Nicoderm, etc.
I wrote an article about the e-cig and its growing popularity among smokers a couple of weeks back.(March 14) Frankly, I find it hilarious that the anti-smoker cult is in such a lather over the advent of the e-cig. The cultists must be getting desperate in their continuing quest to persecute smokers if they’re upset by the sight of someone simply going through the motions of smoking.
And, essentially, that’s all the e-cig does. It’s an alternate nicotine delivery device that allows smokers to go through the motions. It provides the nicotine hit demanded by the average smoker while a propylene glycol solution simulates smoke in the form of a harmless vapour. And, it’s free of the chemical additives in cigarette tobacco thought to cause chronic disease.
One of the stumbling blocks, perhaps unfortunately, is that it looks like a cigarette, and at first glance, it appears as if the user may be smoking. And, that’s contrary to the religious tenets of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker. So, they’re moving to ban the blasphemous abomination.
Says Pat McKone of the American Lung Association (Minnesota): “It very much looks like smoking. It’s confusing for patrons and owners who want to follow the law.”
I think Ms. McKone may be a little confused. Smoking bans ban smoking, not activities which look like smoking. That’s confusing?
Ms. McKone continues: “It delivers nicotine, which is a drug.”
Huh? Hello, is anyone home? Doesn’t the American Lung Association, along with the Non-Smokers Rights Association, The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the rest of the anti-smoker cult actively promote the use of smoking cessation products? And, don’t those products contain nicotine?
Whoops. Sorry. I forgot. Nicorettes, Nicotrol and the like use only Class “A”, pharmaceutical grade, FDA approved nicotine . . . which is still a drug. It appears the cultist’s objection is only to alternate nicotine delivery systems over which the drug companies have no control.
And, undoubtedly, their objection is completely unbiased by the hundreds of millions of dollars received from their sponsors at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to persecute smokers and advocate smoking bans. The fact they receive such massive funding from a source so close to the drug industry is probably just a coincidence.
But, I wonder . . . don’t smoking bans encourage the use of the Johnson & Johnson smoking cessation product line which includes Nicoderm, Nicotrol, Nicorettes, etc. Why, it’s almost as if they wanted a monopoly.
And, if Johnson and Johnson lose market share to the e-cig, the anti-smoker cult may lose a significant amount of funding for their anti-smoker efforts.
And, it’s not just the drug companies and the anti-smoker cult which stand to lose money if the e-cig should become a commercial success, as many retailers are suggesting it is.
The tobacco industry faces the prospect of decreased cigarette sales as smokers switch to the e-cig in situations where smoking is banned. Some smokers are reporting decreased cigarette consumption of 50% or more. That can’t be good news to the tobacco companies. Imperial Tobacco recently went on record demanding that government “do something” about the growing trend towards the use of contraband tobacco products which are cutting into their sales.
And, if the e-cig cuts into legal cigarette sales, governments will see further erosion in the billions of dollars in tax revenue which they generate. The Government of Ontario is already whining about the loss of revenue due to the sales of contraband (currently estimated at 500 million dollars) annually.
The decline in tax revenue stems from a situation created by the government through the imposition of punitive levels of tobacco taxation. The law of unintended consequences was simply not taken into account. Of course, there will be no “mea culpa” from either the government or the anti-smoker cult who instigated the legalized extortion of smokers.
No wonder the anti-smoker cult is in a panic over the introduction of the e-cig. There are literally billions of dollars at stake.
The pharmaceutical industry tends to lose. And, they are unlikely to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in funding if the anti-smoker cult can’t deliver the market for alternative nicotine delivery systems.
The government tends to lose hundreds of millions in tax revenue which will have to be transferred onto the shoulders of the general public.
And, the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker tends to lose since they depend on the other two for their funding.
Ah. It’s time to kick back and relax with two fingers of Gordon Highlanders and a good smoke. The universe, undoubtedly, is unfolding as it should.
My last post (Tuesday, March 23), described a sign on a Lancashire (England) Hospital waiting room which in effect suggested a policy which banned smokers rather than simply banning smoking.
That same day, Dr. Michael Siegel, an anti-smoking activist at Boston University School of Public Health, wrote an article on his blog, Tobacco Analysis, on the same topic. The literary vehicle chosen by Dr. Siegel to denounce the thought (and the reasoning) behind the ban on smokers was sarcasm.
For, example, he made several suggestions including the following. “Perhaps the Oldham City Council should consider banning smokers from going within 20 feet of any infant. Of course, that would mean that smokers must not be allowed to enter the day care profession.
And why stop with infants. Children are also very susceptible to the effects of tobacco smoke. So, Oldham should also prohibit smokers from being teachers, guidance counselors, or librarians, or from working in or entering a school.”
Dr. Siegel even suggested, tongue firmly in cheek, setting up an apartheid system of health care, saying: “You can ban smokers from entering the hospital, but what if they are sick or injured and in need of medical attention.
Not a problem, I say. Simply set up a two-tiered system of medical care. You would have separate hospitals for smokers and nonsmokers. That way, the two would never cross paths.”
It was an excellent article which prompted me to post a comment on his blog stating: "I understand your article was intended as sarcasm, but there’s also a frightening aspect to it. I have no doubt whatever there’s an anti-smoker nut out there, reading some of your suggestions and exclaiming: “Geez, why didn’t we think of that?”"
Well, can you imagine? Sure you can!
Dr. Siegel’s latest article concerns a press release from the anti-smoker group ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) supporting the Royal Oldham policy, and by extension, many of the same proposals made facetiously in his previous column. The press release, posted only 24 hours after Dr. Siegel’s article, was signed by the head honcho over at ASH, Professor John Banzhaf III (or as we say on the East Coast, John Banzhaf da turd).
In his press release, Mr. Banzhaf touts the “hazards” of that newly invented threat to humanity, third hand smoke. If you want to read anti-smoker sentiment at its’ scare-mongering best, you’ll find the text here.
Of course, some very knowledgable people don’t share Banzhaf’s concerns about third hand smoke.
Dr. Siegel notes in his column: “The scientific evidence does not support a conclusion that even secondhand smoke is a cancer risk to children. There is absolutely no evidence that thirdhand smoke is a cancer risk for exposed children.”
But, the following quote from the Banzhaf should give you an idea what the fanatical anti-smoker group and their fearless leader are all about.
"Smokers pollute the air the public and their children are forced to breathe with toxic carcinogenic fumes, inflate taxes and the costs of health insurance, start the blazes which are the major cause of residential fire deaths, kill thousands of their own children every year, and are a major contributor to litter on beaches, streets, and elsewhere. Isn't it time we stopped tolerating if not encouraging this outrageous behavior and harm to the public."
Uh-huh. They’re about hate . . . and right now their hatred is being directed against smokers. (although obesity and drinking are already on their hit list).
I’ve already posted a few articles on the “scientific study” on third hand smoke (January 7 and January 11). John Banzhaf, obviously, was not laughing as hard as I was when I read the story (and the “study”).
Dr. Siegel concluded his article with this statement: “This would be a really funny story, if not for the fact that it may well result in a system of "smoker apartheid," by which smokers need to be banned from public places because of the unrestrained fanaticism and zeal of an increasingly extremist anti-smoking movement that has completely lost its base in science and in reason.”
It sounds like Dr. Siegel, despite being an anti-smoking advocate, is slowly beginning to recognize the frightening level of fanaticism in the anti-smoker cult. Although his interpretation of the studies on SHS may differ from my own, he is (finally) able to see through much of the dishonesty, deceit and gross exaggerations circulated by the cultists.
Anti-smoker extremists are no longer content just to ban smoking in public places; now they want to ban smokers even if they don’t light up. Freedom2Choose reports that the Royal Oldham Hospital in Lancashire, England, has posted the following sign in the waiting room of the maternity ward in that institution: “In the interest of others, smokers are not allowed in this room.”
The sentiment expressed goes far beyond the typical “No Smoking” sign. And, it shows just how far the anti-smoker cult is willing to take its outrageous, discriminatory crusade against smokers.
How will they enforce such a rule? Will they demand that all visitors pee in a bottle so their urine can be analyzed for cotinine? Will they have smoke-sniffing dogs at the door, ready to be loosed on any smoker who might try to evade their “No Smoker” ban?
What began many years ago as a legitimate public health issue, to reduce smoking prevalence and protect people from the potential adverse health risks of smoking, has turned into something vile and loathsome.
With the invention of second-hand smoke, the fanatics discarded science in favour of a public relations campaign designed to “de-normalize” those who choose to smoke. It is a deliberate and disgraceful attempt to vilify a large minority within the population. And it was built on a foundation of deception and deceit.
The deception and deceit continue unabated, as does the vilification of smokers.
The Royal Oldham is apparently using a “study” by Dr. Jonathan Winickoff to justify this latest outrage. Winickoff’s study, widely circulated by the media, claimed that third hand smoke is hazardous to the health of both adults and children, but mostly children.
But, on closer examination, the study wasn’t really a study; it was a telephone survey which asked people if someone smoking in a room yesterday could hurt them today. And, third hand smoke, as it turns out, isn’t really smoke at all, it’s residue left over when the smoke dissipates. Winickoff coined the term “third hand smoke” to foster a public perception of an imminent threat to health.
He managed to convince the press, and I suspect a small segment of the public, that the health hazards were real. And, he obviously convinced the folks at Royal Oldham.
But, Dr. Michael Siegel, of Boston University School of Public Health said: “The tobacco control movement's warnings to the public about the dangers of thirdhand smoke highlight once again that science is no longer driving the movement.” He added later in an article on his blog: “There is no evidence that such very low levels of exposure to tobacco smoke residue constituents is harmful”.
You’ll find an excellent analysis of the study on Christopher Snowdon’s page, Velvet Glove, Iron Fist.
Hell, even Stanton Glantz, arguably the most fanatical anti-smoker on the planet, said in an interview with Scientific American that he is not aware of any studies directly linking third-hand smoke to disease.
And yet we have supposed medical professionals at the Royal Oldham Hospital, brain-washed by the bullshit and bafflegab of the anti-smoker cult, putting up a blatantly discriminatory sign telling smokers they’re not allowed in their damned waiting room. And if they can disallow smokers in the waiting room, why not the whole damned hospital?
What’s next; forcing expectant mothers who smoke to undergo decontamination before letting them into the delivery room? Will they rope off a special area in the parking lot, next to the garbage dumpsters, for mothers-to-be who might smoke?
I suspect this shameful exhibition of malice is less about protecting public health than it is about the promotion of hatred against smokers?
Will the lunacy ever stop?
I’ve never met the guy personally, but over the years I’ve taken a very strong dislike to the man. He, or perhaps I should say she, because the actual gender of the individual has never really been made clear to me, keeps cropping up in conversation.
Whether you’re talking about the weather or huddled next to the dumpster in the back alley of the local booze can, debating the merits of the latest smoking ban while puffing on a Putters Light, you can bet that his (or her) name will enter into the conversation.
“Smoking kills . . . everybody knows that.”
I suspect this “everybody” character must be a kissing cousin to “they”. You know, as in, “Secondhand smoke kills . . . they have a study to prove it.”
Recently, I responded to an accusation that, because I didn’t believe that smoking killed anybody, I must be in a state of denial over my tobacco addiction because everybody knows smoking kills.
Being in a rather mischievous, or perhaps argumentative, mood, I suggested that somebody should do a little research because, according to Statistics Canada, nobody had ever died of smoking and that everybody was a know-it-all asshole who knew absolutely nothing about anything.
The response was a quizzical: “Huh?”
But, maybe I should set the record straight. I really don’t believe that smoking kills. I do believe that smoking may contribute to the death of some individuals through a synergistic or cumulative effect if, or when, combined with other causative factors. But, those smokers will not die from smoking or even smoking related illness. They will die from lung cancer, myocardial infarction, stroke, etc.
My conclusions are not merely a matter of semantics, but the result of a lifetime of personal observation, a little research and the application of simple logic.
Think about it; don’t listen to the fictitious “everybody”. He or she is under the control of the anti-smoker cult. They have surrendered their thought processes to the propaganda of the behavioural control freaks.
According to the latest data from Health Canada, 40,607 Canadians died from IHD in 2002. Only 5,243 were attributed to smoking. That’s only 13% of the total number of deaths from IHD, despite the fact that smokers comprised over 20% of the population. And, notwithstanding the fact that 35,364 of those deaths occurred among non-smokers (a ratio of almost 7 to 1), IHD is referred to as “a smoking related illness” by Health Canada and other members of the cult.
The figure of 40,607 deaths due to IHD is a reliable figure. It comes from StatCan, culled meticulously from death certificates from across the country. And, if StatCan says they’re dead, trust me, they’re dead.
The Health Canada figure of 5,243 deaths attributed to smoking, on the other hand, is a computer generated estimate which may, or may not, bear any resemblance to reality. But, to give you an example of the fragility of that number, consider this.
For years, Health Canada and other members of the anti-smoker cult were touting the number of smoking related deaths at 47,000. Everybody was proclaiming that number to anybody who would listen; the public, the politicians and the press.
But, last year, that number was reduced to 37,000 by Health Canada. There were no adjustments made by StatCan; they were still reporting the same number of real deaths. Indeed, nobody miraculously rose from the dead, waving their arms about and scaring the pants off their near and dear.
All that changed was the computer generated estimate from Health Canada which reduced smoking related deaths, with the stroke of a pen, from 47,000 to 37,000. In reducing the alleged death toll, Health Canada acknowledged that their data, imported from US sources, did not accurately reflect the Canadian demographic.
Now, 10,000 lives saved should have been reason to celebrate, even if they were only statistical deaths. But not everybody, of course, is aware of the good news, because somebody simply changed the figures, quietly and discretely, rather than have anybody make any kind of public announcement or correction.
So, because nobody knows the figures were changed, everybody, Physicians for a Smokefree Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society, etc. is still reporting the old figures and somebody is going to get confused and not know what-in-hell to believe from anybody.
As a matter of fact, I think I might be getting a little confused.
But, there are some things I’m not confused about. Anybody who tries to tell me that everybody knows anything about smoking doesn’t know a damn thing about nothing . . .er, anything. And, nobody should listen to anybody in the anti-smoker brigade because they simply can’t be trusted to tell the truth, even if everybody is buying their bullshit and bafflegab.
Screw it. Time to clear this addled old brain with a smoke and two fingers of Gordon Highlanders. But then, maybe I should skip the Gordon Highlanders; that may be what started this ramble in the first place.
Naw. As well to die for a sheep as a lamb. Everybody knows that.
OK. That didn’t take long.
