Short editorial: the fight for freedom and self-respect

We start the 2007 updates with considerations that we believe are fundamental, as they have to do with self-respect.

Taxes; Enough is Enough

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - California’s Proposition 86: A Review of Voting Patterns and Broader Issues, by Norman E. Kjono. Much has been written about why Proposition 86, an initiative to impose a tobacco tax, failed. The reasons cited include low voter turnout, heavy opposition advertising by tobacco companies, and shifting support among traditional voters on such ballot measures. Each of the preceding views have merit and they do identify circumstances unique to both Proposition 86 and the November 2006 general election. It is apparent, however, that there may be deeper, more fundamental, influencing forces at work. Those fundamentals go to the core of personal beliefs. As reported in survey responses for Proposition 86, factors that influence voter choices include distrust of governing institutions and ballot measure sponsors to assure that new funding is applied as represented by proponents. It is also apparent that voters incorporate new information concerning the nature and purposes of tobacco control advocacy in their decisions. The underlying forces present deeper long-term implications than issues concerning one ballot measure or a specific election. The purpose of this work is to examine fundamental underlying forces that appear to influence the degree to which voters approve of specific cigarette taxes and to address the broader issue of public support for tobacco control advocacy.

Psychobabble

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - The philosophy of regret - “Behind every smoker there is one who wishes they never started”, says  Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, the Michigan congressman on the smoking ban in the District of Columbia. “The problem in this town is if you drop one vice, you'll get a worse one”, he concludes. Perhaps. But let’s check the fundamentals, first – by starting with an old quote from our C.E.O:

‘I don't wish I never started smoking. I like it, and if I could go back in time I would start all over again. The reason many smokers wish they never started is externally induced. They have been lied to for years about smoking's dangers. They have been victims of hatred and persecution. They’ve been called "killers". And a "vice" as opposed to what? The "virtue" of non-smoking? I would say that smoking is a virtue today. With all that propaganda-instigated hatred, those who start or keep on smoking distinguish themselves as strong-minded individuals. When nihilism becomes a virtue we don't have to wonder why we have lost the sense of right and wrong - to the point that we confuse what we like with what is "right" and what we don’t with what is "wrong". What we fail to do is no virtue, it’s nothingness. I'd rather do something such as smoking than do nothing and presume to be right.’

Case in point, let us read this piece of British anti-fat propaganda and think about it: should fat people be wishing they never started having fettuccine Alfredo? Should drinkers wish they never started? Careful of what you wish for, nowadays, no matter what. The most innocent thing you do today will become a wish for not tomorrow – as long as you allow “public health” to dictate your wishes and your lifestyle.

Politics

Senator Kennedy Big Health's Biggest Booster

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - They're baaaaack! - The year begins with the Democrats back in the driving seat after living in exile for many years.  Like a flood cascading over a dam that has been breached proposed regulations threaten to drown us in the pool of love unleashed by the enforcers of correct behavior.  Senator Edward Kennedy is first at bat with an ambitious agenda that will leave no stone unturned as he prods, cajoles and bullies us onto the path of immortality that is the promise of good health through coercion.

When one thinks of good health one, of course, thinks of Ted Kennedy.  The election results of last November had hardly been tallied before this paragon of healthy living issued his plans for America through the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which he now runs.  The scope of his fiefdom is enormous as is his legislative agenda but for now we'll deal with one item that is especially dear to Senator Kennedy and the special interests he represents:

FDA Regulation of tobacco products. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. Empowering the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products is long overdue. Effective FDA regulation will help to deter young people from starting to smoke and to assist current smokers in quitting. Senator Kennedy authored FDA legislation to give the FDA this authority. It passed the Senate twice but was blocked by the House Republican leadership. Enacting this important public health legislation should be a top priority for the new Congress.

FDA regulation is the holy grail of not only anti-tobacco but also of Philip Morris, the country's largest manufacturer of cigarettes.  Anti-tobacco sees FDA regulation as the beginning step to make tobacco illegal while PM, unable to see beyond the next financial quarter, believes FDA regulation will lead to it becoming the only tobacco company remaining in the country.  Lurking in the background is the international pharmaceutical industry that plans to take over the nicotine market as the FDA gradually erases nicotine from cigarettes. 

Not to be outdone, Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi inaugurated her reign by banning smoking in the Speaker's Lobby in the Capitol.  Anti-tobacco is ecstatic, somehow equating smoking bans with democracy.  Pelosi and her anti-smoking henchmen have not yet demanded that the tobacco leaves decorating the buildings ornate columns be chiselled off for the sake of the children.

The new role of "public health": do as you are told

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - Larger-size clothes should come with warning to lose weight, say experts - Now, listen: you need help. You may not know that, but you do. Why? Because we say so. We are the experts, we are "public health", we know what we are doing. Here are our computer-generated figures from our assumptions. Here is the computer-generated chart of your cost to society based on our estimates. And you know by now that our estimates are science, don't you? Put it through your head: you are sick - because you smoke, because you are fat. Here are the warning labels - get help, we are here to show you how to get better. Let's start with the help line phone numbers because we love you. Listen up: "What fat people need is help, advice and sympathy to overcome their addiction to food." Are you listening? Otherwise we'll make ya. No more surgical operations, for example (you won't even be on the list of surgical priorities) - and we'll let you die right out in the cold, and if you are in an old folks home you will freeze outside even if you are a 91-year-old_war-veteran - that will set you straight and show you who's really calling the shots, today. We will ban your food. We will fire you if you smoke, too. You will be banned until you transform into what we want. We'll "educate" your children against you - and we won't even let you adopt one. You stinky smokers and lurid masses of lard... read the warning labels, because you are too stupid and too ignorant to decide for yourself how to live and how to die.
And just don't give us the "rights" line: you have no rights when it comes to your health as you have the duty to be healthy. What do you say? Junk science?... You pay tax?... Fat may be good for you? Who pays you - and how do you dare, anyway? Understand: this is not a democratic debate for which we could'nt care less, anyway. It works like this: we tell you what we want and we don't have to prove it. You say nothing - just get scared and behave as you are told. We are society's scum, we are public health - and we command: if we can get Santa Klaus to lean out, imagine what we can do to you.

John Luik

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - Four big, fat myths - "Obesity worse than drinking or smoking". "Obesity is a greater threat than weapons of mass destruction". "Obesity is the most serious threat to the future health of our nation". These are just a few examples of how "health advocate" doctors (or so they call them) shoot their mouths with the well-tested alarmist tactics used for smoking and for the passive smoke fraud. Even here these people are conning the public, of course - but governments respond to their misrepresentation of evidence far more than they respond to the truth. A government that forbids, taxes and surveys in the name of health is a "responsible" one.

Here is an example of the results: "Big Brother has an ambition: to become Big Nanny. The Government wants to introduce a £224 million 'Children's Index', a massive database of every child in the country, charting progress from birth to adulthood and flagging up 'concerns' about each child's development. Two 'flags' on a child's record would trigger an official investigation into his or her family." This essay by John Luik and Patrick  Basham, published by The Telegraph take us through this journey of thorough fact analysis and considerations on what may be destined to dwarf smoking as the greatest social fraud ever conceived. Yet - as it has happened for smoking - the truth is ignored when the fraud is drummed endlessly into the head of people with state propaganda and with the collaboration of prostituted medical figures. To stop health authorities' corruption and power one first and essential step is needed: people have to stop believing them.

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - Judge Kessler’s new history of the tobacco wars - In this essay that we strongly recommend to read, John Luik goes through the Kessler decision, called by antitobacco's propaganda "a victory for the tobacco industry" but in reality quite the opposite is true. Kessler, in fact, recognizes all the claims of "public health's" propaganda - indeed she rewrites history all in favour of the antismoking gangs - and Luik examines this, and takes it apart with a fine-tooth comb. In reality, we may add, Kessler endorses the lies of the liars by completely reversing the truth about the tobacco wars just as per antismoking script - a faith to which she clearly belongs. Let's just straightforward reverse what described by Luik [*] , and we come out with the pure product. If what Kessler and the rest of the "public health" gang say were true, how come (still today) there is no scientific proof of any of her claims - to the point that "public health" has to con the public by representing a non-science (epidemiology) as science to further its agenda of social control and financial looting? In the last analysis, the "RICO adventure" - the fraud - has been knowingly perpetrated by "public health" in the last decades way more than by the tobacco industry - and let us remind the readers that we are no friends of the industry. It is "public health" who has defrauded the public, relentlessly, and it continues to do so, aware that it can get away with it. Isn't it a shame that criminals call the tobacco industry criminal, and get more power and support for doing so? That alone should tell us a big tale on what institutions (and society) have become.
________
[*] In effect, the industry knew that smoking was dangerous, but denied this, knew that smoking was addictive, but denied this, knew that it manipulated nicotine, but denied this, knew that low tar cigarettes were no less risky than other products, but denied this, knew that it marketed to young people, but denied this, and knew that ETS causes disease in nonsmokers, but denied this. In other words, according to Kessler the evidence is, to use her word, “overwhelming” in each instance that the industry’s view of a scientific and/or policy issue was not simply wrong, but that the industry knew that it was wrong - the fraud - and exploited its being wrong in order to convince people to buy cigarettes.

Søren Højbjerg

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - The debate is over - Søren from Denmark starts the year with this interesting piece showing that lung cancer deaths in the US are at an all-time high while smoking and passive smoke is at an all-time low - yet we keep on hearing, relentlessly, that smoking is by far the main cause of lung cancer. It follows that, would smoking disappear, cancer deaths would crumble. It is not happening: smoking has disappeared by 50% and lung cancer has gone up several times. Yes-yes, it takes 30 years to see the "beneficial" effects of smoking abstention on cancer. But it still does not happen. "In 1950, American consumers smoked about 380 billion cigarettes. That year 20.000 Americans succumbed to lung cancer. ... In 2006, Americans smoked about 350 billion cigarettes, less than in 1950. Yet 162.460 Americans died of lung cancer. That is more than 8 times as many as in 1950." Yes-yes again, the US population has doubled since 1950 (from 150 to 300 million) - but the number of smokers has halved. Søren gives us some of the reasons for this "paradox" and draws the only logical conclusion: the tie between active smoking and cancer is not at all as strong as beliefs and propaganda tell us.

There is, however, a possible explanation for the escalation of lung cancer that makes way more sense than the ideological death "attributions" to smoking: the average age of death has gone from 68.1 years in 1950 to about 78 around 2005. Lung cancer is primarily a disease of old age - and the ten years of life expectancy gained in the last 50 years or so are those where lung cancer absolutely strikes the most. Organized "public health" wants us to believe that the reason why lung cancer has grown so much is because of cigarettes (without, of course, being able to prove it scientifically). In spite of the propaganda, however, facts and figures keep on telling us that this is false. Lung cancer strikes old people (smokers or not) because they are old people. And even if smoking would "help" this particular cancer - well, another cancer (or heart disease) would strike were smoking be eliminated. In spite of the absurd, subliminal suggestion of "public health", death is inevitable - regardless of cigarettes and lung cancer. Is stating the obvious needed? It sure seems so. It is all summed up by the words of Thomas Szasz: "When all the causes of death will be prevented, what will people die of"?

Straightening up drinkers

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - Teens binge drink, U.S. study finds - Nowadays it takes a study to understand what common sense would have told us just 20 years ago. Binge drinking is on the rise – and of course it leads to other "evils", such as smoking and sex. The use (and abuse) of alcohol is on the rise all over the world, actually. But the diabolical part is the perseverance in the abysmal errors: repression, propaganda and control. More tightening, more minimum age enforcements! More control! Harder! Tougher! The driving principle is that if the target good could be simply made unavailable through theoretically perfect controls, the behaviour would change. These public health retardos don't get it at all – the principle is wrong – and can't learn from experience. Prohibition did not stop alcohol abuse; it made it worse. The war on drugs did not stop the use of drugs (and even a tight regulation after a hypothetical legalization would not change the situation). It is the prohibition for underage drinking that drives drinking up. It's the relentless campaigns, the "education" turned into a euphemism for propaganda; it is the insult to basic human will and instincts given by those who tell you what to do, when, how, the ifs and nots which creates resentment and drives the oppressed to abuse or greater use. This more or less conscious resentment is felt by all - young and old. The solution to abuse is exactly the opposite of the contemporary trend: less control, no propaganda and no "education", relaxation of the grip. The solution is to give back to the individual the power and the control (and with that the responsibility) over his life. We are not as immature and stupid as power-hungry and stupid "authorities" want us to be.

Antismoking integrity

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - Yum-yum! Smoking "prevention" money gets better spent - As there is no honour amongst thieves, once again money extorted from the tobacco industry by using junk mortality and disease figures is not spent for propaganda to get the kids to believe in antismoking ideology, but apparently has disappeared into nowhere. "It's disheartening to see money meant to stop kids from smoking instead misused", says the Attorney General Steve Carter. Well, since smoking is not a disease and these kids have nothing to "heal" from (except brainwashing), the appropriation may still be illegal, but it sure is not a great loss. What is insulting (but almost a standard today) is that those who have appropriated money through fraud and extortion (thus, for all intents and purposes, handle stolen money) have the face to pass a moral judgment on those who have appropriated the money a second time and claim to grief because the money could not be used to lie to brainwash kids in the first place! But hey, this is the new "health consciousness" religion. Too bad that the statistical health of the body seems to come at the expenses of the health of morality.

From The Smokers' Club

These signs were found on a major street about a half mile from the Michigan border in Toledo Ohio.

Traffic Pollution Responsible For Health Problems. David W. Kuneman examined the research and found something that bears investigation. To sum it all up, it is highly likely the claim secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, heart disease, and chronic cough in hospitality workers is actually due to their work locations being next to busy highways. Another study finds no link between secondhand smoke exposure and heart attack. UK: No smoke-breast cancer link in study.

As FORCES constantly points out, so-called smoking related diseases, including those that are "caused" by secondhand smoke, are multi-factorial in nature.  In other words there are no diseases that are unique to smokers, or "victims" of passive smoke, nor has it ever been scientifically determined that smoking, or any component in tobacco smoke, is the sole culprit in "smoking-related" disease.  Anti-tobacco fraudulently claims that smoking alone causes the ever-expanding list of "smoking related" diseases when true science, and even epidemiology, indicate that a disease could be caused by a multitude of conditions.  Mr. Kuneman once again finds another flaw in the secondhand smoke studies of bar and restaurant workers, making it more likely than ever, that anti-smoking activists are making unfounded conclusions.

The tyranny of the majority. By Jordan Mueller. We refer to bars and restaurants as “public” places because people go there, but they are actually privately owned businesses. If there were a demand for smoke-free establishments, then owners would ban the practice voluntarily — as many already have. Some have not, indicating the demand for places where smoking is permitted, but those bothered by secondhand smoke are free to avoid the latter.

Better to live with risk than limit our choices. By Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer. Tell these dangerous busybodies to mind their own business — before it's too late.

Smoking ban threatens freedom, state's bottom line. By Jeffrey Sewell. The anti-smoking zealots won't stop until cigarettes are made completely illegal.

UK fraud: in £61m stop smoking programme. Counter-fraud specialists are investigating claims that pharmacists are stealing money from the NHS by fiddling figures on the number of people they have helped to give up smoking.

From Clearing the Air blog

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - Is Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty backing away from a state-wide smoking ban? - "Let's be conservative by embracing the tried, tested and true approaches that are working and the values that steady and guide us.And let's be progressive as we improve and overhaul things that aren't working well or have us on the wrong course..." Well one of the things that aren't working well or have us on the wrong course are the local smoking bans, which have put nearly 100 bars and restaurants out of business, thereby eliminating approximately 3,000 jobs.

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - Islamic terrorists and the pharmaceutical nicotine, pro-smoking ban industry have a lot in common - This news story explains how Islamo-fascist support of smoking bans was one of the factors which toppled support for hardline Muslims in Somalia, and eventually led to the over throw of Islamic forces.

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - Personal damage - We take the liberty to reproduce this letter sent to politicians by Mark Vernimont, yet another victim of smoking bans. The page we are connected to is loaded with reference links to documentation. What is particularly disgusting is the cynicism used by non-smokers and antismokers for cases like this: "things change, economy will adjust". Of course things change, and economies always adjust - Depression was an adjustment too! Those who speak like that are people who are not suffering the financial consequences of a policy that is as insane as it is based on fraud and corruption. They just hate smoking and they are not touched by the consequences of the bans - or so they think. So who cares if people are ruined? - As long as it's not them, that's all that really matters. And antitobacco bastards say that smokers are selfish; try non smokers instead.

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - Inside air quality easily meets OSHA standards - Published by Post-Bulletin.com.  Even the fanatics comprising anti-tobacco activism were unable to find any examples of indoor air in businesses where smoking is permitted that didn't pass muster with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  Secondhand smoke has never been shown to harm nonsmokers and adequate ventilation is all that is needed to remove what is not a hazard but only an irritant.

From Michael Siegel's blog

January 15 [04:00 GMT] - Conflating coronary blood flow and coronary flow velocity reserve: the basis for anti-smoking groups' misleading health claims – Siegel explains one of the many frauds used by antitobacco to mislead the public on the “dangers” of passive smoking. “I thought it might be worthwhile to devote one post to explain the basis for much of the deception of the public that is going on regarding the acute cardiovascular effects of brief secondhand smoke exposure, including the deception by ClearWay Minnesota which I highlighted yesterday, the deception of ANR which I highlighted back in March, and the deception of the American Cancer Society and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids which I highlighted in May.” The list of misleaders, in reality, would be long enough to fill a volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, as antitobacco has become a huge industry of fraud with state participation – but this is a good beginning.