Fight for freedom March 2 [03:30 GMT] - Opposition to Smoking Bans Heats Up VI - The bad news first. Lawsuits based on constitutional and property rights are never successful in overturning smoking bans. This fact is ugly businesses that wish to cater to their smoking customers but is far uglier for the nation as a whole since it is one more indication that this country has divorced itself from the principles that once were its underpinnings. The good news is that businesses are finally shedding their illusions that the property rights hold any value for a legal and legislative system that long ago turned over too much of their prerogatives to unelected, unaccountable and radically out of touch health-related organizations. Norman Kjono reports on the positive developments in tactics to end the plague of prohibition. In addition he relates how smoking ban proponents, when faced with their victims' opposition, are creating a myth that those who do value property rights and scientific integrity are violent troglodytes who must be firmly suppressed. Italy
March 2 [03:30 GMT] - The perfect cocaine kit is in display at the tobacconist near you (but not the cigarettes!) - It is a perfect contradiction of our times - especially amongst rabid, self-proclaimed "progressive" antismokers: no to tobacco, with all the breath you have but "OK" for light or even heavy drugs. This stems not only from dishonesty, but also and especially from the superficiality used to look at the junk statistical "figures", the new, holy grail of state religion. Well, the "numbers" say that the "deaths" from heavy drugs are less than those for smoking — never mind that an overdose from heroin is clearly a monofactorial causality and the "smoker's" lung cancer has about another 40 co-factors. Put all that aside and get the junk science clowns to show a "consensus" of the New Democratic Science Republic that the other factors can be put on the back burner and it is all the fault of smoking... or al least the fault that matters! With this morally retarded rationale, in Italy no tobacconist can display in his store windows packs of cigarettes - my God! - as that would advertise smoking, which half of the Italian adult population practices but everybody is supposed to hide — at least according to the idiotic propaganda. So, the Italian tobacconist (which has always been the only place where cigarettes can be legally purchased) cannot even display the legal product he makes a living from, a far worst position than that of the strictly-controlled fire arms store, who can indeed show in his windows automatic weapons. However, it is not illegal at all for the tobacconist to display kits for sniffing cocaine, complete with scale, cannula for inhalation, blade, etcetera, all in an elegant case with exquisite Italian design. The kit shown to the right is legally available in any tobacco store in the country. The cocaine itself cannot be purchased at the tobacconist, but that can just be acquired a few hundred meters down the block at the pusher near you. The country that was the second in Europe self-righteously to promote the antismoking fraud (and where a total ban on cigarette cases was proposed) has, in fact, one of the highest cocaine consumptions in the world, and no legal problem at all with the sales and display of cocaine kits. So, no to passive smoke and cigarette advertisement, but yes to the promotion of active cocaine usage. Antismoking "progressives" can therefore proudly claim two things: a) They can't be so backwards to continue to repress illegal drugs, thus they forbid the promotion of a legal product; b) There is no study that "proves" that passive cocaine hurts people, so... where is the problem? Happy sniffing -- just don't smoke in my presence! Canadian hatred and state fanaticism
Some proud Canadian smoker should smoke right in the face of Mr. Watson and of what he really represents — which would make the historical statement quite elementary, my dear... March 2 [03:30 GMT] - Short and to the point - Mr. Thomas Laprade says it all in this response published in the Edmonton Sun: "The claim that smoking bans are being pushed in order to protect workers and non-smokers' 'health' is false. The un-stated reasoning behind the bans is simply to make smoking as uncomfortable and un-enjoyable as possible. That's why you so rarely see pleasant accommodations made for smokers and their friends. Well-ventilated situations where smokers and non-smokers can happily co-exist would defeat the effectiveness of smoking bans as a tool of social engineering." That's exactly the way it is. It follows that smokers should make the mentality and the work of antitobacco as uncomfortable as possible too. It is the moral thing to do against state-endorsed fraud and persecution. Let's go to work. Demonization March 2 [03:30 GMT] - The head games of the antismoking cons - Lots of "suggestions" in this piece of political science:
The interesting part is that there are always changes in the brain, no matter what you do or don't. If we decide that walnuts are an "addiction" - thus we look for the mechanism of that "addiction" (as we cash in on the power and money from demonizing walnut eaters), we can actually observe that their brains show "changes" compared to those who do not eat walnuts. The great perceptive fraud by professional antismoking con artists is to portray the smokers' changes in the brain as abnormal because the convenient assumption is that the non smoker's brain is normal. But, of course, the point that would deflate the perception is not told: cocaine and other illicit drugs are psycho-toxic, tobacco is not. If we consider the smoker's brain as normal, the brain of those poor bastards who never had the joy or the smarts to light up a cigarette turn out to be "alarmingly abnormal". The conmen's trick therefore consists in the assumption of normality to reach the political conclusion that smoking is a disease. We have to be very careful about the pernicious dishonesty of relativistic thinking, which is the real disease (and the sick head game) of the fraudulent antitobacco enterprise. Population Control March 2 [03:30 GMT] - United Bans of America? - Any reader of FORCES who is not here for the first time knows our position against the prohibition mentality (currently redefined as "anti" or "ban" culture). Bans have been and always will be the resource of the intellectually short changed (AKA: idiot) who has no tools to deal with what he perceives as a problem. A "problem" that is usually just in his mind and in that of his peers rather that in objective reality. "You don't like it? Ban it and the hell with those who like it!" Ban idiots may be defined as those for whom the universe has shrunk to their own skin. Unfortunately, once the "anti" mentality manages to break the dam of common sense, ban floods ensue that make New Orleans looks like a puddle. This is the case of New York where smoking — as usual — was the cutting edge of the ban flood. After the smoking ban came the trans-fat ban, followed by the I-pod ban when crossing the streets and by an ever-growing long list of bans that would be too long to list here. The latest we are aware of is the dance ban:
As it seems quite clear to us that since those who like to dance are also part of the public, once again a regulation is enacted to protect the public from itself. And yes, you are right, this is not a new ban but what is important (actually fundamental) is the deadly rationale, already used to support smoking bans and to nullify property rights, is used again to justify this decision:
Hear-ye, hear-ye the subtle but universal perversion of social and legal custom: all and everything can be forbidden by authority unless it is expressly protected by the constitution. Get it? The list of freedoms, suddenly, has become a very, very short one. Do you want to accept this Nazi concept just because someone else's behaviour "bothers" you? If yes, stand by for a ban against you. If no, what are you prepared to do to put an end to this (other than complaining)? Understanding the obvious March 2 [03:30 GMT] - Speaking of costs to society… - Smokers and the overweight are eyed like cattle coming down the ramp on the back of a truck, ready to be put on display to an increasingly disgruntled, dumbed-down public: “these people are why your money buys less today, why your health costs are high … these people have put the bright post-war dream at risk with their costs to society, robbing you of what should be yours!” Well, when it comes to the medical system, high costs are driven by a number of factors, among them an aging population that expects lots of expensive life-extending bells and whistles. Moreover, state health care systems, which should be trying to save taxpayers money, seem to be in bed with private companies in making sure that it is only the most expensive drugs which are delivered to the public, even when cheaper effective alternatives are available. In Britain right now, allegations are raging that the National Health Service is paying £500-million more annually than it should for drugs: "Some drugs currently prescribed in large volumes are up to 10 times more expensive than substitute treatments that deliver very similar benefits to patients.” Our Position
Germany March 1 [02:45 GMT] - Domino effect in Germany - In the 50’s and 60’s of the last century the so-called domino effect worried almost all the heads of state of the western civilized world. The fear that the surrender of one nation to communism could lead to the communist rule of a whole unstable region was not the least important cause of the Vietnam War. Even if 40 years ago this thesis could have lead to disastrous political consequences, its scorching actuality still shows in a totally different issue: the trend to impose restrictive and unmotivated smoking bans that the USA has spread to Europe. Even in Germany, a long time established heaven for smokers, hysteria has settled in. The members of our German chapter of Forces
are now on the frontline and deserve our total support. In a communication to
the press, president Cristoph Loevenich made a statement
promptly quoted by several publications:
“These plans are a step towards a Health Dictatorship. Those who give up liberty
for Health imposed by force, will end up losing both.” Owing to the federal
structure existing in Germany, it will take several months before a final
decision is made — a hot period for Forces Germany."Experts" understanding the obvious
Junk science and propaganda March 1 [02:45 GMT] - Send in the climate clowns: don’t bother, they’re here - Bad news for smooth operators who were too slow off the mark. The market is already meeting the needs of right-feeling and conscientious consumers who harbour the need to humiliate themselves over global warming. Willing to pay for the modern version of a medieval Indulgence, these appalling fools are forking out money as a mea culpa for their own farts (never mind the “it’s for my cat” story). If this is a bad dream, when do we get to wake up? Check it out:
Prohibition March 1 [02:45 GMT] - War on smoking tenants - Let’s join together in giving thanks to the petty appointed mediator, “identified only as B. Andrews” who has given the green light to a major western Canadian apartment rental agency to start weeding out smokers from amongst its tenants. Richard Morantz, head of Globe General Agencies, is quoted as saying he is looking forward to the “turnover” (the elimination of smokers) that will usher In a bright healthy new day. There could be no blacks in decent, white establishment buildings — until the blacks decided to take their dignity back with whatever force was necessary. Fight for freedom February 28 [02:30 GMT] - Opposition to Smoking Bans Heats Up V - How long would products, especially those that have been judged risky, remain on the market or legal if the manufacturers of these products took out ads decrying them and advising consumers not to buy them. Not long in the capitalist society in which we live. We have, however, a huge American corporation that pursues such a lunatic marketing plan and it does very well indeed. How is this possible? Norman Kjono explains this apparent contradiction and also weighs in on how the secondhand smoke of the elite is somehow not dangerous at all and how Joe Sixpack is stuck with the tax bill that the champagne sippers don't want to pay. Straightening up eaters February 28 [02:30 GMT] - This year, Girl Scout cookies have less trans fat - Here’s Associated Press fleshing out a press release/publicity pamphlet from the Girl Scouts, acting under the assumption that this is somehow of compelling public interest. It is somewhat comforting to know that the internet, for all its faults, is offering us perspectives that can compete with the vacuity of “news” like this: “For much of the country, it's Girl Scout cookie time again. And this year, all those cookies, not just the Thin Mints and a few others, will come nearly free of harmful trans fats.” And, by the way, there is no scientific evidence that trans-fat is harmful - unless you believe in passive smoke! Junk Science and Propaganda February 28 [02:30 GMT] - Robert Proctor keeps on pushing beliefs and paints them as science - "Proctor claims that by the middle of the 1950s there was a scientific consensus that smoking caused lung cancer. But the tobacco industry ... funded skeptics, started health reassurance campaigns, ran advertisements in medical journals and researched alternate explanations for lung cancer, such as pollution, asbestos and even the keeping of birds. ... But they excuse the industry's own counter-propaganda by arguing that the scientific community was unable to prove a link between smoking and lung cancer until relatively recently. In an age when nearly everyone knows that smoking causes cancer, it might not seem important to study the ways the tobacco companies sowed doubt. But Big Tobacco's methods have since been exported to other industries. At the same symposium ... Professor Naomi Oreskes will discuss a similar topic in a talk titled 'Confounding Science: The Tobacco Road to Global Warming,' and journalist Paul Thacker will give a talk titled 'Thank You for Polluting: How Campaigns to Create Scientific Confusion Kill Product Regulation.' " Notice the play on perception by one who accuses others of playing with words: "...prove a link between smoking and lung cancer until relatively recently", portraying epidemiology as hard science while, by definition, epidemiology cannot establish causality so it is not a science, for a statistical link does not prove causality. Well, you can read the rest for yourself. We can only point out Proctor's doctrine, as it represents the perverse mentality of science revisionists:
Obviously Proctor has become enamoured with the Nazi antismoking propaganda he has studied, as in his book he portrayed Nazi junk science (thus the prejudices that drove it) as "advanced". And we are not surprised that those who have the intelligence to understand that their car tailpipe is not the cause of global warming are painted with the same colours of Big Tobacco. It is not a matter of science - it's a matter of doctrine and faith (in the sanctity of Big State regulation!). And, by the way, we are not paid by Big Industry (or by Big State...) - but it does not take a paycheque to put 2 and 2 together. Straightening up [pop] drinkers February 27 [02:00 GMT] - Sliding Down a Tobacco-Greased Slope - Reminiscent of a time when anti-tobacco told us that all they really wanted was that little warning from the Surgeon General and a disclosure of the amount of tar and nicotine on packs of cigarettes, a lowly New York City councilman has taken it upon himself to influence the FDA to force Big Beverage to divulge the amount of caffeine in their soft drinks. Eerily similar to a scenario played out some four decades ago, the "big two" of Big Beverage have announced they will voluntarily disclose the caffeine content on each bottle or can of soda. This capitulation is obviously an effort by an industry already under heavy attack for it's supposed role in fattening our children, to get the politicians and would-be regulators to smile favorably upon them and stay off their backs. The law of unintended consequences however, which applies to most regulatory measures whether done voluntarily or by force of law, says that listing the caffeine quantity will lead many of the very people they are trying to warn and protect from this apparently dangerous substance (that would be the children) to, in many situations, buy the one that has....that's right....the highest content. Gee....wonder what the fallout from that would be? Politicians and public trough-feeders of all stripes would be falling all over each other in an effort to first, regulate the amount of caffeine allowed per serving and second, ban caffeine in soft drinks altogether. Coffee would be spared......for now.....at least until the kids start drinking double cappuccinos because they took the caffeine (along with most of the flavor) out of their Mountain Dew. At that point a push for a total caffeine ban becomes plausible because now it's "for the children". This quote from the CSPI that reads like a nuclear fallout warning should be enough to scare Big Beverage into fighting for their very existence:
If these juggernauts of the industry had been paying any attention at all over these last 40 years or so, they would be digging into their deep pockets, forking it over to the best lawyers money can buy, and heading these hyper-active busybodies off at the pass. If they don't make this one time investment they (read: we) will be paying into perpetuity. Junk Science and Propaganda February 27 [02:00 GMT] - Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional study - We live in dishonest times. This has been true always, but today it seems that it is particularly so, as dishonesty has permeated virtually all of the fabric of society and behaviour - and especially one of the most sacred bastions of human intellect: that of science. The British Medical Journal piece we are linking to is not telling us anything new, but it is giving new strength to what we already know nevertheless. In this case, we read that the abstracts of studies often do not match the contents of the studies. The authors, counting on the fact that most people only read the abstracts, therefore misrepresent the contents of the studies in their abstracts, obviously for political and financial reasons. Again, this old news for us. All it takes is to READ the contents of the studies on passive smoke , for example, to realize that the methodology is garbage, the results are based on assumptions and speculations. Yet despite all those manoeuvres the results are that there is no serious indication that passive smoking has caused the negligible risk elevations, which are insufficient according to any and all epidemiological praxes anyway. Yet very often what do we see in the abstract of the “studies”? Political trash conclusions to this effect: “Conclusions: … The Authors believe that smoking bans can be an effective protection for the health of non smokers”. There are truly so many examples of that sort of deception that there are truly too many to link to. As we said, we live in dishonest times – and this time we are surrounded by crooks in every aspect of our lives, down to what we eat, drink or smoke - and dishonest politicians are making laws and politics based on dishonest studies. And no, two wrongs don't make a right. Big Pharma February 27 [02:00 GMT] - Pill-popping Nation - Think about it for a minute. In the last week how many TV ads have you seen hyping the latest pill for insomnia, erectile dysfunction, and restless leg syndrome? Probably several. In the past few years, could it be that the latest and greatest epidemic has become, not "social anxiety" or the winter blues, but the wave of new diagnoses for what we used to think of as some of life's expected inconveniences? Can you imagine, the average American took seven prescription drugs during a year in 1993, more than any other nation in the world. At the last "big count" in 2004, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCoP) the "average" American takes 12 prescription drugs per year, with the average cost of $850. "I have an observation", writes a reader. "This does not include illegal drug use. So my first question is: Just exactly who is 'straight', that is not drugged and able to think and reason coherently? And just who the hell is running the country if we are all stoned on prescription drugs?" Straightening up eaters February 27 [02:00 GMT] - Trans Fat Alternatives Also Risky - Cholesterol-raising trans fats may be disappearing from supermarket shelves and restaurants, but one type of fat taking their place may be no healthier, new research suggests. We have trans fat, which is BAD, saturated fat, which is GOOD, and now we have interesterified fat, which we just DON'T KNOW yet. Well, hey, if we "don't know" we can use this one and sue the companies later. Please note, the "bad", "good" or "don't know" isn't the object of the discussion. The object is when it will be appropriate to start the lawsuits. Public Health is not the issue here, the money is the true subject here, as this tobacco/fat lawyer's web site clearly shows. Heresy February 27 [02:00 GMT] - Shutting up the opposition - The perpetration of a hoax follows a fairly well-established pattern. First, the initial propaganda stage. As skepticism increases to the point the hoax may be foiled, desperation sets in. The second stage begins by attacking the skeptics. America is entering the second stage, and it’s not very pretty. The elevation of anthropogenic warming to state-enforced doctrine lays bare the spectacle of politically motivated hysteria smothering scientific inquiry. Those who have doubts that human activity plays a major role in global climate change are being marginalized as industry-funded hacks. When public denigration doesn't work, as it increasingly doesn't, the heavy-arm of government is invoked to silence the critics of what is now a full-fledged article of faith. This article provides a short history lesson in previous scientific hoaxes that were perpetrated by special interests who, after the hoaxes were uncovered, moved on unapologetically to pushing new hoaxes. The secondhand smoke fraud, unfortunately, doesn't make an appearance here but Forces has for years been documenting how anti-tobacco silences those who don't toe the line. Doubters are advised to check out Dr. Michael Siegel's commentaries, which document in devastating detail how this tobacco control advocate has been treated by his colleagues for telling the truth about anti-tobacco's outrageous excesses. Our Position
Fight for freedom February 26 [03:00 GMT] - Opposition to Smoking Bans Heats Up IV - Non-compliance is the name of the game in Colorado as a growing number of bars refuse to obey the statewide smoking ban. For them it is a matter of survival. Data indicate that whenever smoking bans come to town (or to state) patronage dips way down. Complying with unjustified smoking bans is not an option so law-abiding business people become lawbreakers so they can make payroll and feed their families. As Norman Kjono reports it isn't just Colorado that is sharply questioning the imposition of prohibition as more states slam the breaks on smoking bans. More people and businesses are becoming aware that most ventilation systems render indoor air quality suitable for the standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the federal agency that sets standards for healthy workplace conditions. Population Control February 26 [03:00 GMT] - What's happening to my country? - From sea to shining sea state governors are tramping over individual choice to live free as one sees fit. This is why the internet is our last bastion of the "spoken" free world! It is the "corner bar", the town's "commons square", the "meeting room", the "underground railroad" if you will. The nanny United States government would like to take appropriate this public outlet, and as you can see Wisconsin would love to tax everything done on the net too like e-cards, downloads and especially from purchases of cigarettes, tobacco and auction items from EBay. Big bucks from the peons to pay for those that oppress them. The people are communicating around the world and it's scaring and angering the governing class since the elite cannot yet control the "think tanks" "freedom sites" and "personal citizen choice sites." Big Nanny would like to pick them off, one by one. It's a world war of True American (the federalist, the constitutionalist, the libertarian, the objectivist, The last man standing) against those who need the control of others to "feel" complete. Guns are flying off the shelves in Wisconsin, by higher percentages every year, because the citizen knows the next logical step in the state is to discard the Second Amendment. The mayors of Madison and Milwaukee have both signed on to the World Health Organization memo of understanding against guns, wanting to snatch them out of the citizen's hands. Now where does that ring a bell? Hubby and I are both 50 now and thought, incorrectly, that we would work hard, hard and enjoy the rest of our days doing as we wanted. HAH. That was shot down in short order. I am ashamed of my fellows here in Wisconsin and the United States. So we who are pissed off and pissed upon shall keep massing together here on the net, making our groups larger and larger, hopefully under one banner. If in the near future someone steps up to the plate with these principles (federalist, constitutionalist, libertarian, objectivist) in his or her heart we will have a leader. That is in my dream but I'm an eternal optimist as are most smokers. We are optimistic we will live another day to fight the good fight! — From a Wisconsin resident who has seen the light.
Prohibition Control February 26 [03:00 GMT] - Huff and puff in the House of Lords - "The imminent ban on smoking at the Palace of Westminster has prompted former Commons speaker Baroness Boothroyd to organise a ‘light-up and inhale’ party at the House of Lords by way of protest. Among those promising to attend is passionate non-smoker David Davis. The Shadow Home Secretary tells me: ‘Not only do I not smoke, I can’t stand being near cigarettes. They make my eyes water. But this is a point of principle. I object to people being told what to do in this fashion.’" — Daily Mail, Feb. 18, 2007 |
|||||||||||
March
2
Now
read this -- and turn blue: "Hidden cameras captured smokers puffing
away and ashtrays filled with cigarette butts
inside the public broadcaster's Toronto building, and the CBC
says its workers can smoke in similar designated rooms at its locations in
Montreal, Moncton, St. John's, Nfld., and Saint John, N.B."!!! This is
a real spit on the holy swastika of the public health fraud doctrine! The rooms
must be removed immediately, and the inferiors promptly made a public
display of - as it should be.
March
1 