|
|
|
|
One has to wonder why in recent times there has been so much research about tobacco. There is no single answer to this issue, but we believe we can explain most of the reasons.
Let us create a "fanta-political" story that can better illustrate some of the fundamental reasons behind the persecution of smokers.
One day in the not too distant past, the President of the United States was presented with a report on the health of the population. When the President got to the pages concerning respiratory disease, the report showed a tremendous increase in lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses, notwithstanding the fact that the number of smokers decreased by about 50% in the last three decades. As a matter of fact, the increase in respiratory disease was affecting nonsmokers in larger numbers than smokers.
The reason for this phenomenon was quickly found: air quality had deceased dramatically in the preceding decades, due to atmospheric pollution from cars, factories and other industrial sources.
Two courses of action were possible: heavily legislate against the polluters to the point of shutting down industries and facing socio-economic upheaval, or find a scapegoat.
Now let us abandon our fantastic story, and let's move into the realm of reality.
At this point, the machine has taken a life of its own, and a diabolical mechanism exists to fuel it in perpetuity: as the federal funding dries out, local state legislation takes over by taxing tobacco products so that the proceeds can be used to feed a closed-loop system: if you quit smoking, the persecutors can claim another victory over tobacco, and ask for more grants. If you ignore them and keep smoking, they use your tax dollars to keep persecuting you, and make money in the process.
It is difficult for the layman to quantify the interests involved, since he/she tends to be blinded by the apparently good intentions of the antismoking industry. Besides, the media doesn't pay attention to the anti-smoking gravy train. Fortunately, FORCES Canada, thanks to the help of the smokers' rights network, has been able to obtain some documentation on U.S. expenditures; some of this information has been obtained through the US FOIA (Freedom of Information Act).
Could this be because in the 1970s the agencies were funding much needed medical research, and not tobacco prevention programs? Of course it could.
We believe that the answer may be found in these figures.
| INSTITUTION | AMOUNT (U.S. $) |
|---|---|
| National Cancer Institute (NCI) | 338,100,000 |
| National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) | 60,000,000 (approx.) |
| National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) | 1,381,000 |
In the Public Health Service alone (and the PHS is the section of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- DHHS which is most involved in tobacco control) there are 81 (eighty-one) different offices, agencies and committees which are involved in tobacco control. One can only imagine how much that costs to the American taxpayer.
One chart obtained from the PHS shows the following figures allocated for tobacco control (figures in U.S. dollars):
| year 1990 | 87,900,000 |
| year 1991 | 100,600,000 |
| year 1992 | 114,600,000 |
| year 1993 | 199,800,000 |
The National Cancer Institute (a division of PHS) alone gave away 71.9 million dollars in grants, contracts, etc. in 1995 for tobacco control.
President Clinton's call for tobacco prevention programs for kids is another piece of show-time from a very questionable moral stand. For years the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) -- COMMIT, ASSIST, and IMPACT programs: these dramatic names deserve a mention on the National Enquirer -- have received hundreds of millions of dollars for in-school "education" -- kindergarten through grade 12.
| COMMIT | $45,000,000 |
| ASSIST | $135,000,000 |
| IMPACT | $25,000,000 |
All 50 states are covered. Contracts specifically state that NO MONEY is to be used for patient care, or medical research.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) has received significant increase in funding, for the year beginning October 1st, 1996. To the best of our information, a sizeable part of this budget is used for tobacco control (didn't you know that smokers are drug addicted...?).
| Program | Fiscal Year 1996 | Fiscal Year 1997 | Increase |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substance abuse Block Grant | $1.234 billion | $ 1.130 billion | $7,600,000 |
| CSAT KDAs | $90,000,000 | $156,000,000 | $66,000,000 |
| CASP KDAs | $90,000,000 | $168,800,000 | $78,800,000 |
| Safe & Drug-Free Schools | $466,000,000 | $556,000,000 | $90,000,000 |
For the first time in history, and even more frightening for the precedent it sets, the Centre for Disease Control is not monitoring a disease, but a behaviour: smoking (BRSS - Behaviour Risk Surveillance System). Again, all 50 states are involved. Florida alone received $65,950 in 1995 to conduct phone surveys. Even more ominous, the creators of this plan say that the structure developed for smoking could be used in the future to monitor other behaviours (drinking? sex? food? shopping preferences?).
As the smell of excrements is known to attract flies, so the smell of dollars attracts litigators. Clinton is using taxpayers' money to say "thank you" to product liability lawyers for their substantial campaign contributions. Richard Daynard of the Northeastern University Law School, Boston, received $1,119,678 from the National Cancer Institute to fund "innovative strategies" for tobacco liability lawsuits (Grant #1-R01-CA67805-01) -- what does this have to do with research on cancer?
With government picking up the tab, the National Cancer Institute has been more than generous in paying expenses for lawyers to attend Daynard's how-to-sue-the-tobacco industry conferences.
This is just a small sample of the garbage on which the antismoking industry feeds. Even the most convinced (but honest) antismoker would have hard time explaining what this has to do with health concerns. There is no end to the trail of agencies, money and involvement. Every week brings a new angle, and a new scam.
FORCES will report more in the imminent future.
|
Divisions of the U.S. Federal Public Health Service Involved in Tobacco Control Explore the structure of the machine used for the repression of your liberties, using your tax dollars! And remenber, this does not include EPA Divisions and Agencies, or State Initiative (like California's Proposition 99, now "explored" or adopted by several other States), that fuelling persecution's gravy train with tobacco tax dollars coming from the smokers themselves at the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars! If we have to create a new definition of amorality and contempt, let us take an inspiration from the North American antismokes machine! |
Believing that Canada is not contaminated by this garbage is naive to say the least. Observing how the Canadian layman keeps believing in the well-intentioned words of government -- including health authorities -- never ceases to amaze us.
Notwithstanding the never-ending political lies -- not only do the same politicians get re-elected, but their statements are believed, including the ones from federal and provincial Ministries of Health!
The Canadian antismoking campaign is heavily financed by the United States. In typical American fashion, the US government heavily interferes with the affairs of Canada -- and many other nations -- by supporting the political and social movements that suite its interests.
If you think that the various Canadian antismoker organizations are just working out of good intentions and membership, or real concern for public health -- think again.
Let us take a look at the grant money going to Canada and other countries from the United States. This money is used by Canadian institutions for "studies"... we let you guess on what!
The figures come from the U.S. National Institutes of Health Grants and Contracts to Foreign Countries, for the 1990-1995 period. The majority listed were dated 1993-1995 (it is not a coincidence that in the same period we have seen an escalation of smokers' persecution). The document containing this information is over 500 pages thick, and it has been obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act.
To give to the Canadian reader a better idea of the size of these grants, we show the figures in Canadian dollars, as well as US dollars.
| RECIPIENT | AMOUNT IN US $ | AMOUNT IN CAN $ |
|---|---|---|
| World Health Organization | $43,718,092 | $59,019,424 |
| Canada | $146,870,221 | |
| United Kingdom | $29,270,184 | $39,514,748 |
| Various Foreign Countries | $95,108,388 | $128,396,320 |
| CONTRACTS | ||
| Various Foreign Countries | $89,087,052 | $120,267,520 |
| TOTAL | $404,131,937 | $545,578,100 |
Very little surprise that the World Health Organization is taking a strong stand against tobacco!
Do you still wonder why antismoker organizations have become so active in Canada? Do you still believe the good intentions of several Canadian Institutions coming up with a new alarming study almost every week, and can you believe that the results of those studies are unbiased? Of course, another good chunk of funds is domestically produced with Canadian taxpayers' money, including tobacco taxation -- that is, Canadian smokers pay for their own persecution (heard that before?).
It is certainly not a coincidence that the UK is also quite active in antismoker campaigns, even if their level of persecution is not even close to the US or Canadian extremes: their US budget is the lowest!.
Are certain Canadian medical organizations (and individual doctors) on this gravy train? Of course! The more they bark against smoking, the more they get fed by governments. In the near future, we plan to present to our readers more information on this disgusting saga.
As people, Canadians are known to be laid back. How far does the antismoking industry have to push the envelope before there is enough contempt to react?
Next in the cooker of the US Centre for Disease Control are alcohol, coffee, and dietary controls. You can expect our country to follow suit, since it does not seem to have a brain of its own any longer. Canada's federal Health Minister David Dingwall has already said in public that he "would have loved to have banned" tobacco. Citizen surveillance cameras in the streets are already advocated in many US and Canadian cities (and are in place in a few of them). The machine for the invasion of privacy is being built as we speak. Maybe one day smoking will be criminalized, and we'll be able to track down and arrest those dangerous desperados who sneak a cigarette while waiting at the bus stop!
For as long as we do nothing, the repressive prohibitionists will do anything they can get away with. The point of no return is just around the corner, and the goal is about to be reached:
|
|
|
|