A FORCES POSITION PAPER
|
|
A FORCES POSITION PAPER |
|
© 2005 FORCES International |
FORCES International is a global organization with no direct or indirect funding or connections with the tobacco or pharmaceutical industries. It is funded with private donations, membership, and volunteer work. Its constituency consists of smokers and non-smokers who have the common goal of a lifestyle free from state and institutions' interference, and it includes doctors, scientists, writers, economists, researchers, politicians, lawyers, other professionals, as well as lay people from many nations. While it is Libertarian in tendency, FORCES is politically non-partisan, and unaffiliated with any political party. It is solely concerned with liberty, intellectual honesty and the integrity of science, and it is against the use of science as a tool for the control of politics, policies, customs and cultures, economics, and behaviour. Further information about FORCES International can be found at its international website, www.forces.org.
In the last 20 years we have seen the smoking prohibition agenda make huge progress. What started as a purely American phenomenon has now expanded to the point that there is virtually no nation in the world without a smoking prohibition programme.
The smokers’ rights movement emerged to counter the antismoking movement. Self-righteous opponents say that this movement was a product of the tobacco industry, as no one in his right and healthy mind could possibly support smoking. They also imply that the antismoking movement, instead, was a product of increased knowledge about the dangers of smoking. However, even a cursory look at the history of antitobacco shows heavy financing by pharmaceutical multinationals, as well as huge public grants for political gains. That should suffice to put antitobacco in perspective. It does not represent or reflect a cultural change – rather, the antitobacco movement has sought to induce a change, using seemingly unlimited financial means, to promote a form of social control and to sustain access to big budgets. In contrast, while it is true that several smokers’ rights groups (SRGs) were started and financed by tobacco money, the majority of them started spontaneously and independently, a situation that continues today.
SRGs have moved from the tobacco-sponsored formula of “tolerance and courtesy” to the platform of rights: human, constitutional, property and so on. But is this a promising approach? Since the introduction of property rights into the debate about smoking this rationale has been beset with moral, philosophical and logical inconsistencies that - consciously or not - have been sensed by the public. This explains the SRGs’ limited expansion as well as their consistent political failures: so far and in over two decades, there has been no permanent victory by these groups even when they were endowed with hefty budgets from the tobacco industry. Why? This short paper seeks to explain the reasons, and in doing so it attempts to explain why there is an urgent need of putting property rights into a broader context to counter antismoking strategies efficiently.
The
first inconsistency of a rights-based approach to counter the antismoking message
lies with the definition itself: in fact, there are no smokers’ rights,
as there are no drinkers’ rights, or the right to eat fatty foods at a restaurant.
It is quite evident but not well-accepted emotionally that, unfortunately, smokers
have no right to smoke. There is no constitution or law in any country,
in fact, where the right to smoke, drink or even eat what one chooses is
established. That is because,
prior to these present intolerant times, such actions were taken so much
for granted that nobody felt the need to specifically protect them. Would
anybody today deem it necessary to legally protect the right to drink a glass
of water? If it has served any purpose at all, the definition of “smokers’ rights” has
provided the enemies of the SRGs with a useful, polarizing counterpoint:
smokers’ rights (with the association of vice, disease and dependence attached)
versus the non-smokers’ rights to not be around any smoke, and a society that is “clean” from health costs and disease. Who could
argue with that? And, given this context, which right would you choose?
The
second inconsistency that SRGs are exhibiting by stressing smokers’ rights lies
with statements such as, “We don’t advocate smoking, but…” or “Smoking is
bad for you - however…”. Deep-pocketed antismoking campaigns have
managed to nail it into the heads and hearts of people that “smoking kills” in
any form and under all conditions, and that smoking is an immoral and selfish
act. In the light of that, how can any “buts” exist when we are faced with
people consuming a non-essential substance that is killing them and anyone
around them? The SRGs have swallowed such assumptions and believe them to the
point that they can make no statement that doesn't contain a reflexive
concession to the enemy or a built-in apology. One could be excused for
suspecting that some smokers' rights advocates are supporting a cause that they
themselves feel tepid about.
After all, how can one advocate a right to kill oneself in public (or even in private, some may argue)? What kills and hurts must be prevented, educated against, and eliminated. Advocating the right to do what hurts you - and those around you - is a logical non sequitur that leads to a lack of credibility. It must be understood that, for the vast majority of people, those who advocate the right to smoke advocate smoking – no ifs, ands or buts. Of course, the people who believe that have a fundamental misunderstanding of our liberal, democratic tradition. Be that as it may, our position is that there is nothing to be ashamed about advocating the use of a perfectly legal product. If tobacco is such a scourge, then it should be made illegal, and let's be done with it. What is truly immoral in this charade is that governments and antismoking organizations make so much money from what they say is such a killer.
The third problem with the
rights-based approach is linked to the second. A confused and conflicted approach to the whole issue
leads to unconvincing public relations. Instead of de-constructing the
antismoking propaganda and disinformation machine so that people understand the
heart of the problem they
concede to restrictions, propaganda on health, youth smoking
controls and much more in a pathetic attempt to gain public support by not
being seen as bad guys. [1]
One example of this confused approach is sufficient to illustrate the point:
these groups have often exemplified their lifestyles with images of Marlene
Dietrich, Winston Churchill, or Humphrey Bogart – all dead idols of a bygone
era, most of them unknown to youth and some of them even victims of lung cancer
– thus subliminally confirming the antismoking perception that smoking belongs
to the past and that there is no room for it in the evolved, smoke-free future. What are
these entities advocating, then – the right to become extinct in peace?
However, the problem with the SRGs’ embracing of property rights is that the argument is being raised after the antismokers have already successfully used the bogus spectre of ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) to defeat it in the eyes of the public and policy makers. Thus, the argument is out of context and in the wrong order of priority. For the argument of property rights to be successful, the ETS argument must first be defeated, as it most certainly can be.
Libertarian thinking can be applied equally against smoking or in favour of the freedom to smoke.
If we start from the assumption that ETS kills and injures, then it is perfectly legitimate to say that "your freedom to smoke ends where my nose begins", because you don't have the right to destroy my ultimate property (my body).
If we start from the assumption that ETS is merely an annoyance to some, the Libertarian argument still applies, as nobody has the right to limit the use of anyone else’s property (including the body), or to limit anyone’s freedom of action when it does not infringe on another's property (including the body).
Unless the erroneous and fraudulent assertions about ETS are exposed, the public will continue to believe (1), and (1) is untrue.
Furthermore, if we accept the general notion that "smoking kills", then the property rights logic works like this: an employer has the right to discriminate and also to maximize his profits - thus he does not hire smokers or overweight people - or he fires them if they don’t quit or lean out because they represent a “cost” to him. By embracing the property rights argument without tackling the real crux of the matter – the antismokers’ allegations about active and passive smoking, and the bogus social costs of smoking - the paradox is that smokers’ rights groups end up supporting discrimination against those whose rights they are supposedly defending. It’s inevitable – and it’s what we are witnessing now. [2] And since – thanks to the overwhelming propaganda of “public health” - everybody will eventually believe that "smoking kills" and that overweight people are a “cost to society”, it is perfectly logical and very Libertarian that those target groups are left without jobs and refused rental apartments by general consensus - and in the name of freedom and property rights! [3]
Having forced themselves to be coherent with Libertarian ideology while ignoring the manipulative mendacity of antismoking, the SRGs and their followers are falling – and not for the first time – into an ideological/political trap laid out by their craftier opponents. This time the trap consists in the perverse use of Libertarian logic to choke and redefine freedom itself, while coercing behaviour modifications and limits to personal liberty which, if left unchecked, will leave a shamefully illiberal legacy for the future. Smokers, drinkers, overweight people, motorists, cellular phone users and other groups targeted by “public health” will have eventually to agree that they must self-extinguish or be dramatically curbed in their behaviour. Furthermore, arguments such as "medical plans are established to pay for unhealthy lifestyles, otherwise what are there for?" (verbatim from an SRG communication) ring totally hollow because such plans are there only for ailments that are accidental, not preventable, and at any rate not within the control of the beneficiaries. Behaviours of all kinds are within that control and since, once again, "smoking is an unhealthy lifestyle" – out of the mouths of SRGs themselves - it becomes perfectly logical and “fair” that smokers are excluded from medical plan coverage - or that the Medicare premiums or taxes are inflated tremendously "because of Them" - thus, let's push smokers and overweight people out of society. In such a context, the argument that property owners have the exclusive right to establish the smoking policy in their establishments – providing that they slap some kind of warning sign on the entrance door – is equally hollow.
In modern times, health authorities have blanket power to override personal liberties, property rights and even constitutional rights “as needed” to protect public health. That is one of the reasons why we pay taxes, and we would crucify those public health authorities who did not do just that. Thus, who would disagree with shutting down a restaurant with an open cesspool that contaminates food and water? Who would argue for such a business to be allowed to operate providing it puts a sign on the door? And what about accidental exposure of customers, or the health of those employees who work there to make a living? The answer is: only an insane person.
Let us be very clear: the idea that smoking is a public health rather than a private health issue is based solely on the ETS scare, and nothing else. This is the source of the push for total smoking bans. Anyone who relents in the fight against the ETS fraud has essentially abandoned the field.
Property rights and health – but is health involved?
All and every right must submit to public health, as health is the paramount value of society. As bleak as that may sound, this is the credo of today’s Therapeutic State, for which even healthy citizens are just patients waiting to be sick. For that reason, virtually every aspect of our existence has become a health issue worthy of public intervention. In this reality, unelected public health authorities and bureaucrats have found a very effective way to bypass scientific scrutiny and democratic systems, using the authority once granted to them for contagious disease, as a guise to impose behaviour control, their politics and even their economics without suffering any conventional political consequence. And this is the main reason why antismokers have been invincible to date.
Smoking, of course, is no exception – and even more so because of an aggravation: passive smoke, imposing itself on the “involuntary smoker”. Here is the crux of the matter: is passive smoke a health issue? No, it is not.
This is not a matter of opinion. According to every rule of science, statistics, methodology and even epidemiology, ETS does not represent a danger for health – regardless of what health authorities say and activists proclaim. That is what shaky 10-30% increments in relative risk conclusively mean in epidemiological terms [7] – and we invite anybody from the medical, scientific or public health establishment to prove otherwise.
It follows therefore that health authorities are knowingly passing on a false representation of the evidence at hand to the public for political reasons. It also follows that we have a huge institutional moral problem concerning the competence and integrity of the public health establishment. This in itself is deserving of our full and serious attention.
The similarities between FORCES and typical SRGs are numerous in appearance. FORCES has been cooperating and interacting with many of those groups that have shown, through the years, extreme dedication and commitment to the cause of truth and liberty - as well as to the defence of a smoking lifestyle. Differences in scope and approach, however, are equally numerous and may be less than readily apparent, since for both FORCES and SRGs smoking is the dominant issue.
Incidentally, the “ETS is lost, let’s go to property rights” trend is a half-hearted last-ditch PR effort from a tobacco industry that has, long ago, surrendered to antitobacco for political reasons but feels it has to show the hospitality industry and a few other interested parties that it is “doing something”. Defeated tobacco multinationals, in fact, need to buy time to diversify their interests in other fields, as they are currently doing. Their “contribution” to the American Master Settlement Agreement concerning smokers has been not only to stop financing some of the SRGs and become de facto nationalized tax collectors, but also:
If Public Health were truly the goal of “public health”, Clean Indoor Air legislation would already be in place – legislation that would set standards for pollution levels in offices, restaurants, and any other public place. Those standards would mandate the measurement of pollutants in enclosed environments, where individual chemicals are measured and thresholds are set – regardless of whether the locale permits smoking or not – and establish the correct configuration of air exchange devices. That policy would ensure a healthier environment for all. Instead, the antismoking establishment vehemently opposes clean indoor air legislation for one reason - and one reason only: modern air exchange technology can beat any standard that sets a pollution threshold at any point greater than zero – no matter how low. Good indoor air policies would thus take the wind out of the ETS fraud and deflate the smoking ban windbags. In this case, the property rights issue would become largely irrelevant to the battle – a battle that antismokers are winning at every turn today, based on the ETS scare.
To win the war against smoking, “public health” activists endanger Public Health with a rationale similar to that of the airlines that forbade smoking in airplanes – and promptly and dramatically reduced the air exchange in the cabin. Thus, they saved fuel and maximized profits in the name of health and civilization – while allowing more viruses and bacteria than ever before to freely roam in the newly achieved “smoke-free” air. By the same token, antitobacco strongly opposes the production of a safer cigarette because it “would encourage smoking”. So – in the assumption that smoking kills as much as they say - the paradox is “kill them to prevent them from dying”.
Antitobacco is riddled with bad faith – and lots of inconsistencies. Those of us who oppose the antitobacco movement and what it stands for cannot be accused of bad faith, but we must be careful to identify the real roots of the social problem that we are fighting. If we don't do that, we'll end up cheering on the firing of smokers in order to defend smokers, and we risk killing our own movement to prevent it from dying.
Written
by Gian Turci, C.E.O., on behalf of the FORCES International Board of Directors
_______________________
Footnotes and bibliography
[1] For
an example, click
here. If the link has expired, click
here for a copy. [Return
to text]
[2] Concerning the Weyco company firing of smokers in the United States, here are some excerpts from communications by SRGs to readers complaining about discrimination (emphasis added):
| About the rights of workers
and personal lifestyle: "...Our position
is Libertarian... we cannot reverse that position for Weyco. We are
fighting for the personal property rights of business owners in the
hospitality and other industries. Weco cannot be made an exception.
It is Howard Weyers business to run his company as he chooses. His
decisions are an affront to personal lifestyle choice, but the employees
who are being persecuted should find employment elsewhere.
The free market will decide the future of his company. The majority
of states are governed by at-will-employment, meaning employers can
fire employees and employees can terminate their employment for no
reason. The door swings both ways."
About the presumed social costs of smoking: "...It is an employer’s right to control his costs. Nothing is said when an employer skips raises or lays off employees. An employer’s right to control his business is one of the things we are fighting for." About participation in “Wellness” programs: “Employees do not have to participate in this program. No force is being used. But even if force was being used, that is an employers right." |
The admission to undemonstrated "social costs" of
smoking and the avail to sheer discrimination based on personal lifestyle by
these presumed defendants of smokers needs no belabouring. [Return
to text]
[3] The
devastating effect of advancing the property rights agenda without meaningfully
addressing the alleged dangers of Environmental Tobacco Smoke was amply illustrated
on
November 8, 2005 in the State of Washington (USA), when state-wide smoking
ban Initiative to the People 901 passed. FORCES did not participate in that
opposition for reasons set forth in this position paper. Opposition to I-901
by those who participated in that futile exercise was based on business owner
property rights. Opposition to I-901 also stated on several occasions that
they did not oppose smoking bans in general but they opposed smoking bans
imposed by government and that I-901 was “just too extreme.” Opposition to
I-901 did not materially or competently address the issue of Environmental
Tobacco Smoke, in fact they initially refused to address that subject. Consequently,
antitobacco quickly added yet another smoking ban “victory” to its now-long
list of successful campaigns that readily overcome opposition based on property
rights. [Return
to text]
[4] To read and download original
documentation from the World Health organization on the quality of data
gathering for all the "studies" on passive smoke,
click here. [Return
to text]
[5] To see the amount of cigarettes
to be smoked in a 100 cubic metres sealed, unventilated environment to reach the
TLV limits of industrial exposure to chemical pollutants from ETS,
click here
and go to page 93 (page 6 in the pdf viewer) of the document, Table 2.
[Return
to text]
[6] To see an updated list of all
studies on passive smoking and lung cancer ever conduced (including pie charts,
authors and risk elevations/decrements)
click here. To see a
complete, downloadable list of all the studies ever performed on passive smoke
and lung cancer, as well as passive smoke and heart disease,
click here.
The list includes financing for each and every study.
[Return
to text]
[7] For information and comments on
the systematic and un-scientific methodology used for passive smoke "studies"
click here. The
information also includes citation from international health authorities stating
that risk elevations lower than 200% are to be disregarded as unreliable.
[Return
to text]
FORCES INTERNATIONAL (Forces, Inc.) is a non-profit educational corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA. Forces, Inc. has received a charitable tax exemption under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)3. Your contribution is tax deductible.
Mailing address: PO Box 14347 - San Francisco, CA 94114-0347 USA - Tax US identification number: 542023140