|
Q:
Is FORCES a smokers' association?
A:
No. Although smoking is, for now, the dominant issue and most of its members are
smokers, our group is not limited to smoking. FORCES fights healthism and
the therapeutic state.
Q:
What does FORCES mean?
A:
FORCES is an acronym for
Fight Ordinances
and Restrictions to
Control and Eliminate
Smoking, which was (and still is) its
original purpose. However, due to the expansion of the Therapeutic State, our
organization has expanded its scope. Created in 1995, the group has expanded in
many American states and in several nations such as Austria, Germany, Italy,
Netherlands - as it is becoming clearer that the repression of smoking - and the
use of junk science to justify it - exceeds by far the simple ban of
lighting a cigarette in public places. It implies a subversion of ethics,
politics and social values at the service of powerful pharmaceutical corporations
on one hand and state social engineering and control on the other.
Q:
Why does FORCES fight those who want the health of the public?
A:
In the first place, healthism does
not coincide with the health of the public, but is the enmeshment of two
concepts: health and
totalitarianism - hence the term healthism. Today there is
a dangerous deviation from the classic understanding of the role of both
public health and of medicine in general (the latter having had the role of
primarily treating and curing disease). This deviation
(marketed today with the inaccurate term of prevention) implies the
utilization of economic and political power to "prevent disease". This
process, which has unarguable historical precedents in the Nazi state, includes
the concept that being healthy -- or, rather, having a "healthy lifestyle" -- is not just a choice of the citizen but a duty.
Thus, the state has the right to demand and implement with force
compliance with this duty. Furthermore, the state has the right/duty to
"educate" youth in this social duty regardless of the will and
opinion of parents - as we see happening everywhere in public schools with
"antismoking/antifat/antialcohol "education". The medical class has
deeply infiltrated the fabric of the state at all levels (together with the
pharmaceutical and insurance industry with whom the medical class is deeply
associated), and acquired economical and political super-power, enabling it to
alter social systems as well as scientific and democratic procedures.
In the second place, healthism
uses junk science to reach its goals, as it is often unable to demonstrate the
reality of its claims with real science, unwilling to wait for science to confirm its
assertion - and absolutely unwilling to accept the disproving of its theories. Junk
science presents theoretical speculations, unproven assertions (which may be
impossible to demonstrate), and biased statistics as if they were sound
scientific facts of unequivocal clarity. Let us take passive smoke as an example.
There is absolutely no scientific proof (or statistical evidence, for that
matter) demonstrating that passive smoke is harmful to the non smoker. Yet
we are told with absolute certainty that passive smoke causes death and
disease - which are even quantified in meaningless numbers. It is clear the
those who divulge the information are aware of this
reality - the alternative being that they are utterly incompetent. Incompetence
and inaccuracy are
somewhat accepted as media traits, but they become worrisome issues when
they apply to health authorities. At any rate, the "dangers" of passive smoke are an
excuse to justify smoking bans that have their real base in the annoyance that
non smokers feel towards smokers - an annoyance which in turn is induced mainly by
relentless propaganda stating that passive smoke kills: thus, annoyance becomes a
dignifying expression of fear. By the same token, smoking-related
"deaths" are impossible to calculate because of the multiple factors that
contribute to the development of diseases that by no means are unique to
smokers. In fact, not even one death can be demonstrated to have been caused
uniquely by smoking, nor is it possible to establish the contribution of smoking
to the death or disease of one individual. We feel that it is shameful
that ministries of health and other public and private entities - and even many
doctors - lend themselves to statistical trickery, false representation of
evidence and to the promotion of pharmaceutical agendas to the end of marketing
and social engineering.
Finally, behaviour coercion
represents a serious threat to both personal liberties and freedom of
enterprise. A state that uses taxation, communication and law to impose personal
health is called a Therapeutic State, one in which all citizens are potentially sick
and in need of cure. Such a regime elevates so-called public health to a plane
higher than personal liberties or, worse yet, attempts to create an equivalence between health
and freedom. On such a basis, the repression of personal liberties when they are
not conducive to "health" as conceived by the state becomes acceptable,
legitimate and even moral. A very dangerous concept is thus launched: those
who don't take care of their health according to state or special interest
dogmas are immoral, thus their marginalization from social and public life
is justified. Today this mentality pervades among much of both the public and the
state and, as we have demonstrated for years, is no longer limited to
the smoking issue. It has expanded to food, alcohol, and even coffee - and
soon it will expand to any other aspects of social life, since virtually every human action
is potentially harmful to health. Such a concept, which transcends logic and
science as well as morality and intellectual integrity, is sanctioned by the
Precautionary Principle, and is the excuse for unlimited bureaucratic
control.
Q:
If you are against smoking bans, how do
you intend to protect non smokers against passive smoke?
A:
The use of the word "protect" when it comes to passive smoke is unacceptable,
since it implies the existence of a danger - a danger that, in reality, does not
exist because passive smoke, when present, is in practical terms insufficiently
present to cause the slightest damage. In
short, the "dangers" of passive smoking are a fraud. One can only talk about
the
reciprocal annoyance that smokers and non smokers create for each other -
the former with their smoke and the latter with complaints, nagging,
prohibitions and resentments induced by irresponsible state propaganda. FORCES
believe that, instead of laws, real education and mutual respect must be
implemented. Civil coexistence consists of self-limitations and tolerance and of
course both smokers and non smokers are no exception. Furthermore,
we believe that separation - not segregation and ghettoization - of smokers and
non smokers in appropriate and dignified sections (the proportions of which to
be established only by market demand) can easily be achieved in public and
private places.
Q: You speak of tolerance,
peaceful coexistence and respect, but the often belligerent tones of your
organization makes one think otherwise. How do you explain this incongruity?
A:
Moderation is a virtue and it is
effective only in an environment where moderation and balance are the social
rule. In this case, presenting oneself as moderate in opposition to
extremists may create public support. Unfortunately nowadays, the situation is
already in the hands of extremists - that is, people who consider it
"normal" and "therapeutic" to expose children and adults to pictures
of
disfigured cancer patients; to relentlessly instigate people to
sometimes violent intolerance (justified as "self-defence"); and to
segregation and taxation of citizens according to their "vices". Such
extremism has already conquered institutions and state ministeries, and it has
become part of their politics.
Under such conditions, "moderate" opposition is interpreted by
the powers-that-be (which have already decided that dialogue is some
sort of "useless excuse" to justify a "vice") as weakness. To
re-establish common sense and balance, it is necessary to oppose
healthism extremism with an equal counter-force - without
compromises and fear of authority. And this counter-force should be turned to educating
people about the false scientific bases used to justify such extremism.
There is ample historical evidence that any other method tried has
failed against relentless healthism.
Q:
Isn't it easier and more practical to impose a total ban?
It is always easier in a conflict such as this to
impose a ban that gives the advantage of one
side over the other, rather than to respect the rights and dignity of
all. This is the real reason why totalitarian regimes are usually more
efficient than the free ones. The social price to pay for the
simplistic approach taken by such regimes is often very high, and frequently bringing
social collapse - but not before creating effects that are totally
unpredictable and often uncontrollable.
Prohibition often achieves a parallel effect,
although on a smaller scale. In the case of smoking, we have
examples like Canada and the United States, where social tensions
and resentment amongst individuals have reached high levels over the
issue
and where serious economic consequences have been felt, in spite of propaganda that says
otherwise. Such tensions often lead to episodes of violence, sadly
under-reported by a mass-media that believes it is acting in a socially responsible
manner by reporting only what it believes is the "healthy" side of the
story. But the problem is still there, feeding into a generalized and
unfocussed feeling of discontentment. Tensions in the workplace, petty
and spiteful behaviour, revenge and disruption of personal relations are
amongst the mildest of the effects. Finally, the Soviet-style
legitimization of discrimination and "citizen reporting" on people who smoke (such
as toll-free numbers to report on smoking); the considering of
workers as more or less desirable in function of their smoking - all
these are trends that open the
door to other discrimination based on lifestyle. In spite of the obvious
dangers of this, many
ministries of "health" now keep "intolerance indicators", and consider
it a "positive sign of progress" when opinion
polls indicate a rise of intolerance against smokers amongst
the population. We find that simply
revolting.
Q: But
wouldn't a total ban induce smokers to quit and the youth not to begin?
A: First of all we have to quit
considering smoking as something which is always and only negative. That is
scientifically false, and it expresses (or it leads to) prejudice, superstition
and social conditioning that debilitate a civil society beyond the limitations
of the right to smoke. Smoking is a legitimate choice that is as acceptable as
eating, drinking or gambling. Second, it is our deep conviction that prohibition
and propaganda on lifestyles must not be a duty or a right of the state, to
which we neither recognize the authority to legislate on the matter, nor to use
taxation to force and pilot public behaviour to its doctrines. Thirdly,
propaganda and prohibition are either ineffective - as demonstrated by the large
numbers of the smoking youth - or the force behaviour in directions that,
differently than smoking, could be very negative. For example, it is
preferable for a youngster to start smoking tobacco rather than crack - although
some segments of the "public health" community in certain countries, while pushing false
information and prohibition on smoking, close an eye (or even want to legalize)
marijuana and hashish - with the implicit, absurd message that the combustion of
these substances is somehow "different" or more "beneficial" than the combustion
of tobacco. Could it be that they like to smoke that stuff themselves? That
would explain a great many things about the schizophrenic, illogical and irrational
approach of antitobacco operatives and lawmakers! We find this scientific and
moral schizophrenia to be extremely hypocritical and very indicative of the
political, moral and social perversions that characterize recent
years.
Q: Smoking is a vice. Why do you support it?
A: FORCES does not
care about supporting smoking per se. What is important is the liberty to engage
in it during the normal functions of social and private life. We believe that
virtually everything is potentially harmful - and more so in excess - and smoking is no
exception. But, based on sound science, we refute the concept that smoking is
more dangerous than other everyday human activities, such as drinking, driving a car, gambling, or having sex. We know that the propaganda against smoking
consists of an immense exaggeration and over-inflation for the purpose of financial extortion, political diversion, and population behaviour control. But tobacco has been with us for 500 years without ever
having been an "epidemic" -- until the rules of science were altered, and the definition of addiction
was been distorted and re-written for political purposes. Smoking is a pleasure -- and people are entitled to pleasure if, when and where they choose. Moreover, in the case of smoking, they are entitled to the enjoyment of that pleasure while performing normal social functions.
Q: Are you supported by the tobacco industry?
A: No. But
we certainly would not consider it immoral to be supported by the tobacco industry.
We take advertisement from all industries (except from the antismoking industry
- see our policy) on
condition that there is no expectation to change our political positions. Our opposition, while being
lavishly financed by
the pharmaceutical industry, does not hesitate to call any adversary "a
stooge of the tobacco industry" - regardless of whether that is true or not. The
use of two scales of justice and two moral and political measures is typical of bigots and
antitobacco operatives. Doctors and health organizations that have sold out to
the pharmaceutical industry (pardon: who "work in partnership with the
industry", as it is put by certain antismoking media when it is pointed out
that antismokers are on pharmaceutical payrolls) are neither more nor less
credible or morally "correct" than those sold out (in partnership?...) with the
tobacco industry. Incidentally, the fact that the World Health Organization
itself is in official partnership with the pharmaceutical industry does not
legitimize the industry in all of its activities and aspirations. Rather, the fact that a United Nation
body (which seeks to coordinates all national ministries of health and that by definition is
public) is in bed with a colossal, private industry of very controversial
integrity should seriously concern any person who understands the need for
proper political accountability. The very fact of democratically unaccountable
alliances between business and government at an international level gives an indication of
the gravity of the ethical corruption and lack of integrity of "public health"
in current times. Finally, public opinion chooses to look the
other way when confronted with this grave conflict of interest just because Big Pharma is a "helping hand" in the fight against something people have been
trained to hate. People with moral integrity should ask themselves how we can
permit such dangerous political precedents to be set -- even if it does give
many members of the public emotional satisfaction.
Regardless, what matters is not who pays for a message, but rather that what's said is true
and verifiable - which is certainly not the case for tobacco propaganda. At any rate, FORCES is an organization funded solely by membership and sponsors, and run by volunteers.
Q: Do you support the tobacco industry?
A: That
depends on what the tobacco industry does. We certainly support the right of the
tobacco industry (and any other industry) to freely promote and advertise its
products, which are absolutely legal and certainly no more "dangerous" than many
other products which are allowed to be advertised. This, incidentally, does not
imply that advertisement of those other products should be restricted (other
than when it is misleading) because of some idiotic "leveled plane field"
concept. Equality under tyranny is not justice at all.
We are, of course, in disagreement with those industries that
promote antismoking, such as the pharmaceutical industry - although we recognize
that as its right as long and insofar as it is using normal marketing tools and not
lobbying for smoking bans, tobacco taxes, the diverting of public funds for
the advertisement of smoking cessation products, or by giving questionable
"incentives" to doctors and hospitals in exchange for smoking cessation
promotion and/or dissemination of false information on smoking.
Apart from this, we are usually in strong disagreement with the tobacco industry about
the fight against anti-tobacco. We criticize the industry for being very short-sighted, meek, and soft-pedaling when it comes to fighting its opposition,
as the industry itself seems to be a victim of those pseudo-moralistic and para-scientific
prejudices that are demonizing it. Also, we resent the industry for not involving -- not even considering -- its
clientele when it comes to decisions and negotiations that affect the purse, the
destiny and the liberties of its customers.
Q:
Why all this animosity on smoking? Aren’t there more
important causes concerning liberty out there?
A: When talking about
liberty, all causes are important, and it has been said that the price of
liberty is eternal vigilance. We know that the war on smoking has deep
implications – so deep, in fact, that they tend to go unnoticed by the
uninformed layperson, who unfortunately represents the vast majority. Beyond the
infringement of the sacrosanct freedom of choice lays a serious institutional
problem.
The fundamental problem consists in having the state (which in the case of
smoking is represented by the health establishment) imposing statistical and
scientific fraud and half truths with laws, while considering behaviours that
don’t conform to its diktats as forms of disease that must be cured with a medical
and psychiatric approach – a reminiscence of dark regimes in recent
history. All this mainly to serve special interest groups who knowingly lie to
the population and use moral and medical credibility to impose behaviours that
benefit politically and financially those special interests.
It is very grave, for example, that important medical associations or well-known doctors
con the population about the dangers of passive smoke (and openly say that smokers
are killers) when there is no proof at all that it is so. These people
are not only allowed to falsely represent the statistical evidence, but the
state is on their side. Stating falsehoods for personal economic and political
gain is called fraud by the law, and claiming to do it “for the people’s good”
is not even a mitigating factor under the law, which is equal for all – but not
in the case of antitobacco. These conmen are not only allowed to operate and be free, they are encouraged in their behaviour by a system and a state
which systematically refuses to even consider the indisputable evidence
demonstrating the hoax. When fraud is perpetrated by the highest
authorities, laws and justice get redefined.
To accept the de-normalization of smoking means to accept the normalization of
institutional corruption and the adoption of junk science as official state
science. It also means accepting that the state is not accountable to the
public for its actions and statements even when they are demonstrably fraudulent,
and thus that it can impose those frauds with the unrestricted power of the law.
We do not believe that this is a negligible issue – even when applied to
smoking.
Q: What are your political affiliations and ideology?
A: We are not affiliated with any political party. Though we believe that the fight against anti-tobacco must be a political one, we are not
"party political" in nature. The fight for personal, civil and human rights is usually independent of political parties. Of course, we will support any party that stands for the rights of smokers, and the right of choice.
We realize that, today, no major political party would support the right of
smokers and/or the fight against the false representation of evidence by the
antitobacco scam artists any more than fifty years ago it would have supported
the civil rights of blacks. Then as now the reasons are the same: fear of
political repercussions from public opinion and, in this case, from the powerful
pharmaceutically-funded antismoking movement. But if the health establishment is
not stopped, it will micromanage all aspects of politics and life. We already
see health "authorities" attacking
alcohol and
food, while
multi-million dollar lawsuits are settled on the use of
perfume; in
the meantime, junk science
"attributes" 50% of all deaths to lifestyles (may one presume immortality as
an alternative?) setting the grounds for much heavier interference of family
doctors in the lives of their patients. In the US, the American Medical
Association pushes for gun control
[1] [2]
and even tells the people the
type of vehicles they should drive! By constantly and broadly redefining
the role of "public health" and doctors in society, "public health" will expand
its political powers ad infinitum while sheltered from the political and
economic consequences of its actions. It will not find this feat difficult to
pull off, since it is not perceived as a "political
body"; a very comfortable position indeed - and a very dangerous illusion for
the people.
Q: Do you believe that children should smoke?
A: Of course not. Children should not smoke, drink, or engage in other adult behaviour. But we are certainly against lying to children about the effects of tobacco to keep them away from smoking.
We are against the interference of the state in the family,
especially the way it encourages children's disrespect for their parents simply
because they smoke. Since we know that honestly reported scientific findings show that secondhand smoke is not harmful, we cannot justify the theory of child "protection" or "self-defense" against smokers.
Q: Do you support tobacco education in schools?
A: As education presently stands, no. These are the reasons:
- If we choose to educate about potentially dangerous substances and behaviours, then education should not be limited to tobacco. There are immensely more dangerous substances and behaviours to educate children about.
If we choose to educate children against all possibly dangerous substances and behaviours, that kind of education would be at the expense of conventional education, already severely lacking
in substance.
Schools are there to teach children academic disciplines that are useful in life, not to become propaganda centres to satisfy social or political agendas. Education about
lifestyle choices is to be left to the parents, who teach children according to their own values. This is important to maintain
the moral and intellectual diversity which is the foundation of a strong and resilient society.
We do not consider what is taught in schools today to be tobacco "education" but anti-tobacco propaganda not dissimilar to the health campaigns of past European dictatorships. Extreme
emphasis on physical education is always there in times of intellectual darkness.
If there must be tobacco education outside the scholastic environment, children should be educated on the real and verified potential dangers of tobacco, if any, with a neutral and detached attitude, and comparisons should be made with far greater and present dangers such as heavy drugs, and other risky behaviours. We feel that this perspective has been intentionally lost in schools to satisfy an agenda of political propaganda. Making the children believe that tobacco is worse than almost anything else, equal to or worse than cocaine for example, and submitting children to violent images of surgical operations on organs that are allegedly
damaged by tobacco is irresponsible, brutal, and obtuse, and sets off the false
notion that using drugs is OK because they are no different than cigarettes!
To grow up straight, children deserve truth, balance, the
teaching of respect for adults (especially parents), as well as examples of
tolerance and moderation. Finally, we feel that today's level of education in
the school system of many countries (especially the USA) is disastrous enough,
without the need to brainwash children about tobacco at the expense of
conventional education.
Q: Are you favourable to
the prohibition of tobacco sales to minors?A:
No, and this for two main reasons:
-
What is forbidden attracts.
Keeping minors from obtaining alcoholics and cigarettes increases their desire
to have them, and antitobacco "education" enhances that desire, more so in kids
with bright minds who don't get easily brainwashed by propaganda. Anywhere the
sales have been prohibited to minors, the percentage of drinkers and smokers
between eight and fifteen years has greatly increased. Furthermore, there is a
direct relationship between drinking restrictions and underage drinking in
northern European and north American countries: the tougher the restrictions,
the greater the transgression. The abuse is not the cause of the prohibition;
the prohibition is the cause of the abuse. But today this easily demonstrable
reality is obfuscated by fanatical health activists, which argue instead that current restrictions are "not tough enough", and
more are needed - because the only acceptable rate of alcohol and tobacco use
among the underaged is zero. But absolute
prohibition does not mean absolute control and elimination of the intended
target behaviour, but rather driving the targets out of control. Thus, inescapably,
zero tolerance means zero intelligence.
-
The prohibition of sales to minors
carries the implicit, false message that tobacco and alcohol are highly
dangerous substances, thus adult maturity is needed to handle them. Again, that
stimulates the adolescent to demonstrate that he is mature, and to experiment
with them inappropriately. We also have to remember and accept that
some experimentation is part of the normal and healthy development of the
individual, and
that stubbing/discouraging experimentation during the youthful years may
impair the development of judgement in the adult individual. Conversely, a relaxed social
acceptance of the use of these substances without propaganda drumming and
combined with family guidance and a school system that teaches universal
moderation as opposed to zero tolerance and paranoia would not stimulate the
desire for transgression.
Finally, if everything that is
potentially dangerous is forbidden or controlled, then control becomes total and
personal choice is precluded - which is the final goal of the dark healthist
ideology, which intends to kill pleasure in the name of long life. And that, in
itself, is not healthy at all. |
