Canadian women's hockey celebration: real joy

To-day's post is a little off my regular beat. It's about a hockey team that won an Olympic gold medal and then had a bunch of moralistic morons try to steal their moment of glory. Then again, maybe I'm not so far off topic. I've been writing about puritanical simpletons for almost two years now.

And, some clown from the Vancouver health department did publicly scold members of Canada's women's hockey team for smoking.

At any rate, it's a story on which I had to comment. I'm Canadian, eh.

I missed the women's gold medal hockey game on Thursday night. I had to chair a board of directors meeting and by the time I got home it was all over. Unfortunate, I thought, but I'd pick up the highlights on the news and read about the game in the morning papers.

Unfortunately, there was more about the post game celebration in the papers than there was about the girls on-ice achievement. Imagine. Hockey players drinking beer and smoking cigars? Horrors. Some idiots actually referred to it as a “scandal.”

It was a long hard grind for the young ladies on Canada's women's hockey team. But, they withstood the pressure and capped off an excellent overall performance by defeating the US women's team 2 to 0 to win Olympic gold. And, apparently, they did what the vast majority of people do under such circumstances . . . they celebrated.

They opened a bottle or two of champagne, drank a few beers and some of them lit up one or another tobacco products, mostly cigars. (I hope they were decent Cubans.) They clowned around and posed for goofy photographs. And, they smiled. They smiled a lot. Because they were happy. Because they'd just won Olympic gold. Because they were justifiably proud of their accomplishment.

But, that got some people's knickers in a knot. Said one commenter on a news article suggesting the girls be banned from future competition, “Breaking out alcohol and cigars sends a bad message to young kids who are highly influenced. Booze and tobacco are bad for your body. All you beer-guzzling Canadians who think it's okay, you're wrong.” Huh?

Beer-guzzling Canadians? Well, OK. But we're also polite, courteous and helpful to strangers.

Some unsolicited advice for this prude and the other puritans who are so highly critical of the these young women; grab a cold one and chill. Preferably a Canadian brew. We make good beer up here in the Great White North.

Hell, if the the girls hadn't popped a cork and swilled a few beer, I'd have been demanding they provide proof of citizenship. They're Canadian, after all!

A lot of the news accounts made it seem as if the girls had been falling down drunk and engaging in some kind of public debauchery. But, just a quick look at the photographs should convince anyone with an unjaundiced eye that wasn't the case. They were girls, doing what girls often do. They were having a little innocent fun. And, they'd earned it.

The girls . . . (And, for the record, that term is not meant in a derogatory or chauvinistic manner. I'm retired and collecting Old Age Security. To me, anyone under 45 is still a kid.)

At any rate, the girls had opened the bubbly in the dressing room. Some of them had digital cameras and they wanted to take some pictures. They wanted a record of the occasion; to take home some tangible memories in addition to their gold medals. And, who in their right mind can criticize them for that? (Don't bother to answer that; the question was rhetorical.)

So, after the fans had left the arena, some of them took themselves, their cameras and some bubbly to centre ice. And, they held one of the most spontaneous, most honest victory celebrations in recent memory. And, they took pictures. Pictures which captured the exuberance of the moment. Pictures they'll look at in years to come and remember the camaraderie; the glory. Pictures they'll be able to show their children and grandchildren with justifiable pride.

Unfortunately, although the fans had left the building, the press had not. And, they also took pictures. And, if there's anyone who should feel shame in this situation, it's the press who took the photos and built a mountain from a molehill. The photos of the Canadian players gleefully displaying their gold medals, posing with cans of beer, champagne and cigars, posing atop a Zamboni, etc, apparently struck some as inappropriate.

Just how did these priggish puritans expect them to celebrate the thrill of a lifetime; hold a temperance meeting, maybe?

Take a close look at the photos. That bottle of champagne (with the Canadian logo) appears to remain unopened; passed around like a prop at a photo shoot. Many of the cigars appear to be unlit. Look at the cameras in the hands of the girls as they joyfully snapped pictures of their friends and teammates. Look at those beautiful, smiling young faces.

Clearly, this was not some public display of drunken debauchery, even if some did consume a brew or two or take a sip of the bubbly. It was meant as a private moment, despite its public setting.

But now, the International Olympic Committee is “looking into the incident.” Canadian hockey officials have issued an apology. An unwarranted apology, in my opinion, because the girls did nothing wrong. And, some priggish individuals want to rain on their parade; to deny them their moment in the sun.

Hopefully, the young women on Canada's Olympic hockey team won't let their self-righteous critics bring them down.

I'm pretty confident the vast majority of Canadians will shower these talented young ladies with all the accolades they deserve. They did their country proud, both on and off the ice.

Anti-smokers resort to pornographic imagery

Very little about the antics of the anti-smoker crowd shocks me anymore. Not the suspect statistics, the fraudulent science or the hatred and vitriol excreted in their anti-smoker messages. But . . .

It appears that the anti-smoker crowd has reached new lows with the latest manifestation of their hate campaign against smokers. They've now resorted to the use of child pornography to sell their message of contempt for those who smoke, including young people who may experiment with tobacco..

An on-line news item from the Telegraph reports that an anti-smoking organization called “Droits des Non-Fumeurs” (Non-Smokers Rights) has caused an uproar in France with its latest anti-smoking campaign. Droits des Non-Fumeurs admits the ads are meant to shock and are designed to target young people. A spokesperson justified the ads, which critics say trivializes sexual abuse, by claiming “the posters showed neither rape nor abuse”. Huh?

Released earlier this week, the ads show an older man pushing down on the head of a teenager (both male and female) with a cigarette in their mouth, in a position that suggests oral sex. The tag-line reads: "Smoking means being a slave to tobacco".

"The campaign targets young people who see cigarettes as symbols of emancipation, of freedom,” A Droits des Non-Fumeurs spokesperson claims, “when it really causes dependency and submission.” Uh-huh.

But, behind the flowery rhetoric, the message to young people seems quite clear; if you smoke you're a slut or a pervert. They're saying that smoking, like sex, is vulgar and obscene. Young people should feel guilty about their perversion and quit the habit.

But, sexual activity, including fellatio, is not something ugly or demeaning when engaged in by consenting adults. And, while it may be irresponsible for young people to engage in sexual activity for a number of reasons, it is neither immoral nor indecent. Young people should not be taught to be ashamed of their sexual impulses, but rather to deal with them responsibly.

The moralistic, self-righteous bastards responsible for this outrage are trying to lay a guilt trip on impressionable young people by undermining their self-esteem and unforgivably attempting to shame them in the eyes of their peers.

Directing this kind of unethical, anti-smoking propaganda at adolescents and teenagers is loathsome and inexcusable.

There's a damn sight more pressure on kids growing up today than there was when I was a teenager half a century ago. But, there are some things which will never change.

For example, the need for acceptance by one's peers; the need to fit in. This kind of attack on young smokers will do little to discourage the use of cigarettes. It will simply create an “us” versus “them” mentality and generate more unneeded animosity between peer groups.

Fifty years ago, during my teen years, I experimented with booze, smoking and, yes, sex. I discarded the booze some years ago. (OK, OK, I admit it. I still appreciate a good single malt scotch every now and then). But, guess what? Half a century later, kids are still experimenting with those same “vices”.

These are adult frailties; part of the human condition. Remember, kids are ever anxious to breach the bonds of parental authority, to be seen as adults. So, many will continue to experiment with adult behaviours in their rush to “grow up”.

But, we're talking about young people; immature, inexperienced and not fully cognizant of the consequences of their actions. And, surely to God, there are better ways to educate our children about the potential perils of life than this thinly disguised vilification of young people who may choose to experiment with the tobacco habit (or engage in sexual activity).

And, let's not ignore the possibility that this kind of anti-smoker campaign will appeal to the naturally rebellious nature of teenagers and prove counterproductive.

This disgusting, irresponsible campaign by the bottom-dwelling bastards in the Holy Church of the Anti-Smoker deserves the condemnation of responsible parents everywhere.

Smoking is addictive; get help to quit?

It's said that, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it. And, the bigger the lie, the more likely people will be to accept the falsehood as the truth. Nowhere is this bromide more apparent than in the Alice in Wonderland world of the anti-smoker.

For example, one of the common myths perpetuated by the anti-smoker crowd is that smoking is addictive, and that smokers are simply incapable of quitting on their own. They need help to quit. The concept of nicotine as addictive is re-invented with every incarnation of the holy crusade against smoking.

To be sure, the concept has been embellished upon, and exaggerated, through the years, but it's still the same old lie.

Nowadays, the anti-smoker crowd will tell you that nicotine is as addictive a substance as cocaine or heroin. Of course, to prove their theory, they had to redefine addiction. And, they've had to ignore (or conceal) all evidence to the contrary. But, because the public has been conditioned to believe the lie, through many decades of repetition, it was easy to sell them on the idea that smoking was as addictive as mainlining or snorting hard drugs.

To understand just how pervasive the lie has become, take the following statement: “Trying to quit the tobacco habit unaided is a losing fight against heavy odds, and means a serious shock to your nervous system. So don’t try it! Make the tobacco habit quit you. It will quit you if you just take Tobacco Redeemer according to directions.” Uh-Huh.

So, what is “Tobacco Redeemer”? A brand new smoking cessation product from Pfizer or Glaxo-Smith-Kline to add to their list of nicotine replacement therapies and anti-smoking drugs? Well, to be honest, I've been unable to find out much about the stuff. You see, the assertion comes from an ad in the December,1919 issue of Popular Mechanics. According to one source, it was a medicine manufactured by the Newell Pharmaceutical Co. of St. Louis, Missouri.

Surprising, isn't it, how long the anti-smoker fanatics have been with us? And, the snake oil salesmen peddling smoking cessation products are even more likely to be working for the pharmaceutical industry as they were ninety years ago.

And, the reason is simple. The pharmaceutical industry profits handsomely from the sale of smoking cessation products such as Zyban, Chantix and NRT products (or Tobacco Redeemer). Or, to reiterate another cliché: “Follow the money.”

I suspect that a full page ad in Popular Mechanics was just as expensive ninety years ago as the blurbs for smoking cessation products you see several times a night on TV. And, the manufacturers of Tobacco Redeemer were no more interested in public health than they are today. Their motivation then, as now, is profit.

To be sure, the pharmaceutical companies are riding the coattails of another growth industry – the anti-smoker cartel, but their motivation is the same; turn a profit and keep the shareholders happy. The massive funding of the anti-smoker movement by the drug companies is simply another marketing tactic. It's an investment they hope will pay off in increased sales.

The anti-smoker cartel created the need, quitting smoking, and the pharmaceutical industry is prepared to fill that need . . . and to fill corporate coffers at the same time.

Anti-smoker advocate Simon Chapman, noted in a recent article that: “In 2006, the global nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) market was estimated at $1.7 billion. The pharmaceutical industry places more messages about quitting in front of smokers than any other source: in the USA, smokers see 10.37 pharmaceutical cessation advertisements per month compared with 3.25 from health agency messages. The constant megaphoning of the idea that quitting requires drugs is causing a rather spurious tail to wag a large banished dog carrying an important message.”

That's a lot of advertising. And, $1.7 billion is a lot of sales.

But, as Chapman also points out in his article, “studies repeatedly show two thirds to three quarters of permanent ex-smokers stop unaided and about half find it easier than anticipated.” In other words, the vast majority of smokers who quit, did so without drugs.

Or, as Chapman says: “The good news on cessation is treated almost like a state secret. There are no campaigns highlighting that most ex-smokers quit unaided despite globally hundreds of millions having done so. Among my colleagues, unassisted cessation is rarely researched, instead framed in studies often funded by the pharmaceutical industry as a challenge to be eroded by persuading more to use drugs.”

But, the efficacy of smoking cessation products is even more dismal than Chapman admits. The failure rate of smoking cessation products has been estimated by some at more than 95%. (Quit Smoking)

Yet, the belief that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quit without help is being fraudulently perpetuated by the the anti-smoker cartel. The Canadian Cancer Society, Non-Smokers Rights Association, Physician for a Smokefree Canada and even government agencies like Health Canada, maintain the myth and actively promote the use of smoking cessation drugs.

It's a situation which can, and does, carry with it some serious negative consequences. The message, constantly repeated, is that giving up the habit requires medical intervention in the form of drug treatment. The message betrays the truth; the vast majority of quitters can do so on their own.

And, the constant repetition of the anti-smoker mantra makes it all the more difficult, for those who wish to do so, to quit. The message subverts their confidence in their own inner strength, forcing them into an unnecessary drug regimen.

Unfortunately, the truth also undermines the marketing strategies of the pharmaceutical industry. And, any drop in sales of smoking cessation drugs jeopardizes the funding of the anti-smoker industry. So . . .

The myth lives on.

More anti-smoker hysteria! third hand smoke

There's a sucker born every minute.
Each time the second hand sweeps to the top,
Like dandelions up they pop,
Their ears so big, their eyes so wide.
And though my tale is bonafide baloney,
Just let me spin it,
And ain't no man who can resist me, wait and see..
Cause there's a sure-as-shooting sucker born a minute,
And friends the biggest one excluding none is anyone
Who buys the bullshit and bafflegab of the anti-smoker crowd.
Author Unknown

OK. So, I modified the last two lines, and it doesn't rhyme, but I'm sure you get my point. What else could you call someone who takes third hand smoke seriously. OK. So maybe we could call them gullible for starters. Simpleton might be a valid descriptor, or buffoon.

Unfortunately, some of the people buying into this nonsense are actually well educated. Some of them need more than their fingers and toes to calculate their IQ. Like the doctor who, when asked how long third hand smoke clung to the furniture and draperies, responded with scientific precision, “A long time.” Uh-huh.

God forbid I should ever have to rely on her for medical care for anything more severe than a hangnail.

The latest third hand smoke insanity . . . er, study, reportedly cost over $700,000. This incredibly expensive piece of propaganda was conducted at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. The experiment involved impregnating cellulose substrates with pure nicotine vapour, then applying nitrous acid to see if the reaction created carcinogens in the form of tobacco-specific nitrosamines. These refugees from a loony bin in Berkeley weren't interested in testing a hypothesis, they were hell bent on supporting the contention that third hand smoke was a health hazard.

At any rate, they found that nicotine, when combined with nitrous acid, produced TSNA's (Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines). The main indoor sources of nitrous acid are from unvented combustion appliances such as gas stoves or wood fireplaces. So modest levels of nitrous acid are likely to be present in many homes. Smoking, of course, can also produce nitrous acid because it is a product of combustion.

But, to produce TSNA's of even microscopic proportions, they had to use concentrations of nicotine and nitrous acid which far exceeded anything likely to be found in the average home. And, as author Chris Snowdon notes in an article in the Free society, “if your house or car is full of nitrous acid then you have more to worry about than it reacting with absorbed nicotine.”

The study is being heavily reported in the main stream media, along with suitable comments from health scare professionals. “Third-hand smoke found in hair and on clothes can be as dangerous as the fumes billowing directly from a cigarette – particularly to babies and children.”

But, the study did not prove anything remotely resembling harm to anyone, including children.

They proved that sufficient quantities of pure nicotine vapour (not tobacco smoke residue) when mixed with sufficient quantities of nitrous acid caused a chemical reaction which produced barely measurable levels of some TSNA's. And, since the quantities of both nicotine and nitrous acid were magnified far beyond normal, all they really proved was that there was a chemical reaction when the two were combined.

They did not show that secondhand smoke residue was found in significant quantities in the homes of smokers, that so called third hand smoke was hazardous without the influence of nitrous acid, or that there was a degree of risk posed to toddlers licking floors which are, apparently, never cleaned. Just how many square feet of floor does a toddler have to lick to make him ill?

Yet, according to most news accounts, it's third hand smoke and the multiplicity of allegedly deadly chemicals they contain, which are the danger. And, they're already burying our kids, figuratively speaking.

The real solution to any potential hazard of third hand smoke will be denied by the anti-smoker crowd and ignored by a gullible public. Just keep the kids to hell away from research facilities while they're conducting their fraudulent experiments. That way, they'll never be exposed to a quantity of third hand smoke sufficient to do them any harm.

The only real worth of this particular study is in its propaganda value. It allows the anti-smoker cult to link secondhand smoke residue (now called third hand smoke) with the safety and well-being of children. It allows the cultists to twist and distort the reality and instill an irrational fear of smokers in the minds of parents in particular, and the public in general. It will allow the cultists to justify otherwise unjustifiable discrimination against smokers.

Just like the studies on secondhand smoke, it is meant to create the perception of harm while ignoring the reality of the science.

I'll finish with a quote purloined from the pages of The Smoker's Club Newsletter. Elizabeth Whelan, M.D., President, ACSH (American Council on Science and Health) and anti-smoking advocate: "There is such a phenomenon as third-hand smoke. There's no evidence whatsoever that it's hazardous to health, but as an aesthetic matter, it's quite noticeable if you're sitting next to someone on a bus who reeks so badly of smoke that you are nauseous. Still, being able to smell something doesn't mean it will give you cancer or any other disease."

"I can't believe we've reached the phase in anti-smoking hysteria that we're now worried about carcinogenic effects of third-hand smoke. When are we going to get to fourth-hand smoke?"

Dr. Whelan should check out the latest rambling from Leg Iron over at Underdogs Bite Upwards. We're way past fourth hand smoke.