Paul

Dear Paul,

Thank you so much for these intelligent questions that address the ideological foundations of FORCES.

I will start by answering the concluding statement of your thoughtful letter. An argument is as compelling as its logic -- and, when the subject touches on the art of living, we can also reserve in good conscience at least some place for the compelling power of passion.

Also, please understand that we are not here to "lead" anyone, for we believe that the best leader of an individual is the individual him/herself, not the state, not the institutions -- not FORCES! We are here to inform, and to make people aware of another point of view and of information that is often not regularly reported by the mass media.

Having established that, let us examine your points one at a time.

You claim smoking is a right ... because, if I understand correctly, that the individual has the right to do what they see fit with their own bodies.
Well, if that's the case, then why do I need a prescription to take an antibiotic?
If it's because I don't know enough about antibiotics, then what do I need to know about cigarettes before I purchase cigarettes?

You need to have information about the possible dangers of cigarette smoking, especially if those dangers exceed a certain commonly accepted standard of reasonable risk. Though we do not believe that this is the case of tobacco, we do believe that people have the right to control their own bodies, and that they should have access to information about the risks of smoking, as they should have access to information about the risks of alcohol, unsafe sex, poor nutrition, pregnancy undertaken late in life, or anything else where sound information can be helpfully brought to bear on the individual decision-making process. Despite our often-colourful rhetoric, we have never really been against smoking-and-health education. Our concern is with the admittedly often slippery region between education and propaganda, and our contention is that much recent public health "education" about smoking falls indisputably into the second category, to an extent that it is not only misleading, but socially irresponsible.

Here's an example for illustration: some of our members on the U.S. west coast have reported radio ads in the local media consisting of a dramatization in which a non-smoker is repeatedly told that she is a smoker because she is sometimes in an environment where people smoke. She is then told about the increased health risks that smokers face. Every time she objects with the line, "But I'm not a smoker," her interlocutor gleefully responds with "Yes, you are," to hammer home the message that smokers make unwilling smokers out of everyone else in society with their second-hand smoke. Now, there is no good evidence to date that second-hand smoke poses any appreciable risk at all to the non-smoker, a fact that is particularly significant in a modern industrialized society where very heavy emissions from a variety of sources, from jet to automotive exhaust, expose everyone to particular risks that were unheard of one hundred years ago.

There are those who would argue that facts shouldn't get in the way of efforts to get people to quit smoking, and that inciting people against one another is an effective way to create social pressure that will get people to quit. We disagree. We think that endorsing this approach is to endorse institutional social intolerance -- very dangerous, in our view. Moreover, we believe it is very damaging for society if science is misrepresented to the public, or if junk science is encouraged, in order to help promote a social agenda. The ends do not justify the means.

Further, to take things to more of an extreme, perhaps reductio ad absurdum, then if I wish to inject myself with some lethal poison, then if I have a completely unfettered right to do as I see fit with my own body, then the society has no right to intervene. Are you supporting euthanasia, or even death on demand?

Society has no right to intervene if you decide to commit suicide, Paul. Though we understand the human reaction (that I would have myself) to prevent somebody caught in the act of taking his/her own life, if I would feel that this is what the person really wants on a rational basis then yes, I would respect that will. People who are kept alive as vegetables by machine are not treated humanely either. The question of individual competence is an important one, of course, and there are many people who have attempted suicide who thank God every day that someone was there to save them. But assuming that Socrates was competent when he took his cup of poison, should he have been stopped?

Granting people the right to control their own bodies does not necessarily imply an acceptance of death on demand and euthanasia. Those things are more ethically problematic because they require the intervention of another person - you may have the right to end your life, but that does not obligate me to help you.

Now, why is smoking cigarettes a right, whereas smoking marijuana is illegal? ... Or, is this not as it should be in your view?

Another excellent question. Have you even seen in our site any damning of marijuana smoking? I don't think so! In fact, we see what is happening to the marijuana smokers right now (millions in prison, confiscation of property, etc.) as a time capsule, representing a probable future for the tobacco smokers if this anti-smoking folly is not stopped. People who smoke marijuana are perfectly entitled to do so. Unfortunately, among them, there are some who, while fighting for the right to get stoned, support tobacco prohibition, but that myopia is another topic...

Also, why is driving a car a privilege extended by the state that can also be taken away by the state, whereas you're claiming that smoking is a right that the state has no business interfering in regardless (presumably...) of any consequences that might ensue for the individual or the society as a whole.

Firstly, driving a car requires skills that have to be acquired and verified. The loss or bad use of those skills leads to the loss of the privilege. Smoking does not require skills.

Secondly - but I suppose that your question anticipates this answer - because driving a car can hurt somebody other than yourself.

If there is any damage at all as a consequence of smoking, however, it is only to the ones who smoke. But not according to anti-smoking junk science which affirms that smokers "hurt" others. This has been the golden key anti-tobacco has fabricated in order to open the door to rampant prohibition.

Paul, FORCES and other fighters for the freedom to smoke are not motivated just by what may appear as the selfish desire to smoke per se. We are motivated also by the issue of integrity. We have the largest Internet scientific database in the planet about smoking. Second hand smoke does not hurt people. There is no evidence of it. All the so-called "mountain of evidence" about the effects of second hand smoke, the deaths it is supposed to cause, are all junk science, for there is absolutely no causality established -- none. And there can't be any. And this, notwithstanding the immense amounts of money spent to desperately prove such causality. And the greater the lack of evidence, the more rabid anti-tobacco becomes to turn smoking prohibition into an established, accepted fact before the truth comes out!

Second hand smoke may disturb people who don't smoke, and in the case of severe asthmatics may even trigger a reaction -- that however can also be triggered by hundreds of other known factors people are perfectly willing to live with. That is why we support smoking sections wherever possible -- and it is possible in most cases. The state knows that smoking sections are possible as well, that is why it comes down with prohibition and junk science propaganda in order to prevent the implementation of that option, and demonstrating in this way that its concern is not with the health of the non-smokers, but with the establishment of a precedent for controlling personal behaviour.

Is there any substantive constitutional basis for your argument? "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... (Declaration of Independence, I believe...) But, what if my pursuit of happiness is to live in a world without the annoyance, diminished health, and monetary drain associated with smoking? Certainly there is no explicit right to smoke given in the Constitution or the laws of the United States?

The US Constitution does not specifically talk about smoking, and it does not talk about drinking or bunjii-cord jumping. The words of the Founding Fathers are intentionally vague to help cover ALL the permutations of human and social reality that may develop in our journey through history. To answer the second part of your question I will have to take the liberty to interpret it as follows: "What if in society there arise conflicting pursuits of happiness that are mutually exclusive?" That is where civilisation comes in, something the Fathers could not build, but which they have laid the foundations for. Tolerance is the art of the wise, communication the art of intelligence. Your statement about "diminished health and monetary drain" can be applied to a huge number of human activities, not just smoking: ranging from drinking to gambling, from eating to sex, from driving a car with all its (really) deadly emissions to owning a gun. How do we live with all that? By tolerating each other's deficiencies, for no one is perfect, there is NO ONE who can establish the parameters of perfection, and pursuing happiness does not mean pursuing perfection.

Life is an endless negotiation within and without, and this art is being lost more every day -- especially in North America. That is why we have surrendered to Big Brother the right to intervene, and He does -- to "protect" everybody against everybody else in an endless and ever-increasing orgy of prohibition and regulation.

Civil liberties and personal freedoms come from very precious and very limited wells. How much are we willing to sump the wells to quench the thirst of our insecurity? And what will the results be when those wells are dry? The book of History has answers for all of us to consult.

Finally, if smoking is a right, upon what basis is this right asserted? What's its utility or necessity to the individual or to society?

If we limit our vision to the tiny issue of smoking itself -- none. But as soon as we zoom out, the picture is clear. Smoking is pleasure. Pleasure is a necessity, a compensatory mechanism indispensable to make up for social pressures. Puritan attitudes of contempt and repression do not serve any positive social purpose, for they tend to remove the essential, compensatory function of pleasure.

Yes, it so happens that pleasure is often potentially dangerous: smoking, drinking, sex, speeding, gambling, Italian cuisine, expensive cars... they all present dangers to health, costs to society -- in short, a price to pay for a service rendered.

Under the tight lid of the North American pressure cooker, the state is removing the safety valves of pleasure, one at a time. While repressing smoking, the eyes of the state are also on drinking, food, sex, and almost any of the established forms of adult pleasure -- and the state does not offer attractive alternatives, for there are none to offer.

Pressures of tectonic magnitude already deform the American pressure cooker, while violence is erupting everywhere. And the response of Doctor State? More repression -- to protect, of course.

It's sort of like getting rid of the headache by killing the patient.

Take care yourself.

Gian Turci
FORCES INTERNATIONAL