|
May 4 -
...And they
call this "science" -
Nearly ten
years ago FORCES began denouncing the passive smoke fraud. During
this time we accumulated and put on line a vast amount of evidence.
The crowning of our efforts to date is this new compendium, which
does not just explain the Great Fraud in simpler than ever terms, but
also makes available ALL the studies ever conducted on
passive smoke and lung cancer/cardiovascular disease. All the original studies
are downloadable, one by one or all together in zipped files. Statistical
significance, authors, financing; it is all there, a quarter century of research
on passive smoke — to prove what?
Nothing, other that it is impossible to demonstrate that passive smoke is
harmful.
The evidence we
supply is now complete — and we can support it with epidemiological
consulting by professional epidemiologists in any courtroom anywhere in the
world. Yet there are still those on our side who question the validity of the
scientific approach as the one tool that can really put an end to this
war on public smoking with the victory of liberty and truth. Business
associations, lawyers, politicians, media persons — even tobacco executives and
pro-choice activists are still largely ignorant of this statistical fraud/false
representation of (junk) science, and thus question its effectiveness as a legal and political tool. Rather, they bring forward trite and
worthless arguments such as local or general economic issues, freedom of
personal choice, constitutionality, “cool” lifestyles, endless analyses of
motivations and even antismoking psychology.
Hold on! Those
are not worthless arguments — have we gone insane? Not at all, but we
have to face reality.
In today’s
enmeshed social values, it is unarguable that “health” is paramount in society.
Whether that health is real or presumed has become utterly irrelevant —
perception is all that matters. Thus, as long as the public perceives passive smoke
as a public health threat, it will be closed and deaf to any other argument, no
matter how important and fundamental, no matter the consequences. It follows that only
when the
perception of threat is removed by demonstrating the false representation of evidence
is it going to be possible to have any other argument considered. Given the endless
propaganda against smoking and the ensuing hysteria, almost the only place where
it is possible to establish that the dangers of passive smoke are a fraud is in
courtrooms. Of all the political/legal/cultural arguments against smoking prohibition and
antismoking campaigns, however, the passive smoke fraud is what has
been used the least — in fact, wielding the categories above is a stubborn refusal to use
the only thing that would succeed.
Why is this?
The list of speculations is endless, but one is worth mentioning: those
angered by anti-tobacco coercion
believe the lies disseminated from the authorities they fear: Somewhere
down deep, they believe that smoking is bad, and passive smoking
must be bad also — or, at least, the fraud and ensuing prohibition is what it
takes "to make them quit" such a "bad habit". So, they
refuse to educate themselves using the excuse that "fighting the science is not gonna work",
forgetting that it is not science, but
junk science. In that way they don’t have to challenge the health
authorities and endanger the very structure that oppresses them,
but that they believe in nevertheless. On the other hand they don’t like
prohibition, thus they keep on fighting (and losing) with the same blunt weapons
hoping that one day it will "go away". It will not, unless it is
forcefully uprooted at the base, which once again is the junk science.
Of course, antismokers
wisely refuse to engage their adversaries on scientific grounds, as they know quite well that
they would not stand a chance in a scientific
debate, and they make sure
that their opponents also believe that the scientific weapon is useless! So,
here we have a war unilaterally declared — thus an aggression — where the
attacked defend themselves with whine and blunt weapons, keep on missing the
targets, and are afraid to win by using the only real weapon they have.
How ironic. |
