Every time I light up, when I open the pack of cigarettes I read the doom and gloom message that is printed on the pack. The warnings on Canadian cigarettes are the dream of the international antismoking Cartel, for they cover 25% of the area of each side of the pack.

Like everyone else, I really don't pay any attention to the warnings anymore, though recently Health Canada saw fit to "sign" the warnings to add credibility, and the warnings themselves have become increasingly divorced from a responsible reflection of what is scientifically known, to the point that a lie signed by a bigger liar just makes a bigger lie. My body has developed tolerance to tobacco in the same way as my mind -- and the mind of most -- has developed tolerance to the lies about it.

Only one warning still elicits some indignation: "Tobacco smoke causes fatal disease in non- smokers -- Health Canada", because it wrongly brands me as a killer, and as a selfish individual who disregards someone else's safety.

Being a confirmed fighter against the antitobacco Cartel, I am perfectly aware that this is not true. In fact, there isn't one single piece of evidence that second hand smoke actually harms anyone, let alone causes cancer or emphysema (the "fatal lung disease" that the warning refers to) in non- smokers. The evidence in fact points in the opposite direction: to the conclusion that there is NO relationship between second hand smoke and these diseases in nonsmokers. Unfortunately, most smokers are not as informed as I am, and they sometimes fall for the false messages.

So I wondered: "Isn't this false advertising? Isn't there a law against that? Or at least some sort of rule? There outta be!" I mean, in a society where leaving something alone is as inconceivable as taking a walk to the Moon, I was sure that somewhere a law had to be found.

Armed with the arrogance of hope, I started to investigate. My first phone call was to Advertising Standards Canada in Vancouver, where I explained my concerns, and the case I had at hand. The kind people of the Vancouver branch mailed me the "Canadian Code of Advertising Standards".

Page 2 of the Code quickly clarified the situation.

Definition of Advertising - "For the purpose of this Code, 'advertising' is defined as any paid message communicated by Canadian media with the intent to influence the choice, opinion or behaviour of those addressed by the commercial messages."

Application - "The Code applies to advertisers promoting the use of goods and services, to corporations or institutions seeking to improve their public image, and to governments, government departments and crown corporations, provided such advertising meets the criteria set forth in the definition."

"I've got them!" I thought in a moment of excitement, already dreaming of seeing a doctor, a politician and an executive of a health non-profits in a chain gang on their way to the crowbar hotel.

But when it comes to nailing down the antitobacco scum, hope so far has proven to be as ephemeral as the beautiful mimosa flower. The next sentence was the downer:

Exclusions - "The Code does not govern or restrict the free expression of public opinion or ideas through advocacy advertising, or election advertising."

A subsequent phone call to the Headquarters of Advertising Standards Canada in Toronto confirmed that there are no loopholes around those exclusions.

Now, I am a passionate practitioner and dogged advocate of free speech -- firmly in the camp of those who believe in the free marketplace of ideas. I think that a free society is by definition one that suffers even the most offensive speech in order to protect everyone's speech.

Advocacy advertising and election advertising from political parties must be fully protected, of course. But there is a case to be made for restrictions and strict oversight over the "advocacy" advertising of a sitting government that has the wealth of a nation at its disposal to create as much propaganda as it wants? And what about government "front groups" (that is, nominally "grass-roots" groups that receive their financial support from government)?

For this is how the Antitobacco Cartel -- which is basically a creature of government, with government-funded hangers-on -- protects itself. Through advocacy advertising, antismoking organizations can spread all kinds of false information, indirect (and sometimes very direct) slander, instigate hatred and intolerance -- and get away with all that as clean as a whistle, even with self-righteous contempt for any opposition. And -- what's worse -- they influence our children whether we agree or disagree, thus effectively substituting themselves for parents in shaping youthful values and choice.

Not being accountable to the legal system and to the public for the accuracy of its information, the Cartel only needs a solid taxpayer-financed budget to produce and spread the counterfeit/altered/distorted information necessary to create public hysteria, and to develop the political consensus for proposing and passing laws that restrict the freedom of citizens, while allowing the Cartel itself to concentrate more and more clout in its hands, and effectively intimidate, silence and dismiss any opposition.

In fact, advocacy advertising is so powerful, it can create the political environment leading to laws that actually forbid commercial advertising (see tobacco advertising) or even forbid the publication or presentation of scientific evidence proving the innocence of the intended victims.

Government has always tried to "sell" its policies to the public. The disturbing twist that we increasingly see is the use of emotion and image to sell ideas, rather than arguments and soundly documented facts. Maybe that's not a big deal if you're selling a new brand of dish detergent. It's a different matter when government is trying to condition our attitudes toward one another. And antismoking ads have certainly been crafted to do that. For all intents and purposes, such "advocacy" advertising can thus burn the books of knowledge in the pyre of hatred.

Here at FORCES we often receive mail asking why nobody takes the Cartel to task for false advertising. At least in Canada, such advertising seems to slip between the cracks of the industry's advertising code. And even if it is possible to sue the government on this, it takes resources that frankly, we don't have.

So, in a nutshell, advocacy advertising allows the antismoking activists to basically lie to the public to their heart's content and without any legal accountability. The sky -- or their wallet -- is the limit, but their wallet happens to be our taxes. And the lack of law suits against the Cartel is in turn interpreted by most people as evidence that the Cartel is telling the truth.

If this leaves you frustrated, that's good -- because perhaps you will be motivated to press for more accountability. And it is a reality check for the many who still believe that we are living in a fair-play society that is respectful of truth and diversity after all.

With I understand the necessity for the aforementioned exclusions in the Advertising Standards Council's Code, it is clear that the spirit of those exclusions has been deeply violated in the same way the spirit of science has been raped for political purposes. As citizens, we are totally powerless, for we do not have the budget to buy our own multi-thousand-dollar-a-day ads to "advocate" the truth. Nor we can find much media willing to give us a voice, for very often the media are afraid of losing the well-paid antismoking advocacy advertising as a retaliation by the Cartel for allowing opposition to have a voice.

The Cartel harasses any media that allows its opposition to speak. In October 1996, I was on the other end of the phone when Toronto's CFRB AM 1010 wanted to host myself and Garfield Mahood of the Non-smokers' Rights Association over a press release FORCES issued on the absurd statement by Mahood that "passive smoking is as dangerous as arsenic and benzene". After refusing to face me directly, Mahood vehemently accused CFRB AM 1010 of "being irresponsible" for hosting opposition to antismoking. The talk show was supposed to be aired the same day with separate statements. The talk show was never aired.

Welcome to the new "democracy".

On the positive side, every coin has two faces, even if ours has been loaded with lead so that it never comes up when the coin is tossed in the air.

Not-for-profit, and non-commercial organizations like us (given that we can find the necessary medium and the means) can advocate our position that antitobacco is a dishonest, money-grab that is being perpetrated on the public by using hysterical misrepresentation -- and tax dollars.

I'd like to see some advocacy advertising along these lines:

• "As advocates for the rights of smokers, we submit that the Ministries of Health in Canada, and organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society, and the government-subsidized Nonsmokers Rights Association have knowingly and consistently disseminated information about the effects of smoking and second-hand smoke that is one-sided, incorrect, inconclusive, if not totally false, while projecting the impression that they were neutral and disinterested parties."

• "We submit that the aforementioned ministries/organizations have knowingly and consistently withheld or dismissed scientific or statistical information that is not in accordance with their political agenda, while presenting their arguments in such a way as to project the impression that there is no valid dissenting evidence about the issues that are discussed.

• "We submit that the aforementioned entities are seeking social control for the purpose of power conglomeration, personal enrichment and self-aggrandizement, as well as the nationalization of legal private industries such as the tobacco industry for the purpose of directly benefitting from the revenues that tobacco generates.

• "Furthermore, we submit that the aforementioned entities are committing crimes against the liberties of adult Canadian citizens and their children, who are the unwilling targets of false or partisan scientific information in schools, as well as victims of a propaganda of intolerance aimed at shaping their minds to justify the repression of their peers when triggered by arguments of health and safety.

• "Finally, we submit that these entities represent a clear and present danger to a free society, and should therefore be investigated by neutral authorities and, pending the outcome of the investigations, they should be prosecuted, and sentenced to jail terms in proportion to their crimes, as well as subjected to financial reparation whenever applicable".

Gian Turci