|
Smoking bans
are good for business - didn't you know?... Here is the latest from Washington
state: "Non-tribal casinos have already lost tens of millions of dollars
because of Washington’s new indoor smoking ban. A new financial study, conducted
by our own KIRO Team 7 Investigators, discovers taxpayers could loose millions
as well. Card-rooms, charity bingo
Now we have another one: Q.: "Why has Man been able to fish successfully since time immemorial? A.: "Because fish are too stupid to tell each other about nets and bates". Now, the fishermen are the antitobacco cons, whose "experts" promise great business with prohibition and "level-plane fields". Antismoking junk science August 18 [17:58 GMT] - Third hand junk science - "Tobacco: deadly in any form or disguise". This is the new ideological motto of the crooks of the World Health Organization, and everybody's welcome on board the bandwagon for a new "health" terror gimmick. And here it comes... Introducing "third hand smoke"! This baby is sure to be a winner in the fear and reaction market, because it sells itself: after all, we're basically claiming that this mysterious substance kills infants, not quite on contact, but almost! And it's all thanks to the good folks at San Diego State University. As "90% of the nicotine adheres to surfaces" - so goes the story - "babies can acquire these contaminants just by touching the sofa or chairs". Too bad that these imbeciles forget two things: a) nicotine is not dangerous to health, as stated by the Institute of Medicine; b) It is a good thing that children are exposed to at least some "contaminants". That's why Mother Nature has provided them with the instinct to put their hands in their mouths: to build resistance. If they were not exposed to "contaminants" we would have a world full of sick people - the ultimate dream of those who advocate the Therapeutic State. But hey, there's never been a better time to start your career as a shameless shill in the modern social engineering industry! The passive smoke fraud August 18 [17:55 GMT] - Does Secondhand Smoke Really Cause Cancer? - In spite of the propaganda and the prohibition, more and more people have become aware of the frauds on smoking. This Canadian site is an improbable source for discovering what we knew all along, as it is a health and fitness site, and today most such sources are contaminated with healthist political correctness. The final paragraph is particularly interesting, where it quotes one Dr. Siepmann, MD: “We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information. Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge.” Doctor's opinion August 18 [17:54 GMT] - How many more diseases will be "attributed" to smoking? - Elio Gagliano, MD, is a columnist of FORCES Italy. As our Italian site is off for the month of August, Dr. Gagliano (who speaks perfect English) dropped us some thoughts. He writes: "According to all the bits and pieces that have been
written in medical and pseudoscientific literature, and in ordinary mass media
about the health damages produced by active and passive smoke, it is becoming
very difficult to find a disease that is not, one way or another, linked to
smoking. By the time you read this note there will be someone who has written
about some other pathological entity connected to smoking. And if you decide to
write a comment to the present note, the list of tobacco induced diseases will
be lengthened by the time you finish it. Michael Siegel August 17 [14:40 GMT] - So who's a lousy antismoking son-of-a-bitch, Mr. Koretz? - Yep, we are down to name-calling, and why not at this point? "If you're too stupid to recognize that [secondhand smoke is dangerous] on your own, then we have to pass a law to tell you. Don't be an idiot, don't smoke with your small kid in the car with you." These are the words of Assemblyman Paul Koretz. These antismoking bastards don't seem to have any problem in offending smokers in any way they can -- although they offend the general public first and foremost with all their lurid fascism, backed by their own stinky frauds. Riding on the passive smoke fraud wave, in fact, Kalifornia is considering yet another smoking prohibition, this time a ban on smoking in cars in the presence of children. Michael Siegel gives some of the reasons why any credibility behind this fascist law proposal is gone already, and then he wonders why they don't forbid smoking at home too - to be coherent with their rotten policies. They will, Mr. Siegel, they will - unless we stop them, but we can't stop them by just analyzing and complaining. And they will go into smokers' homes while insulting their victims, too - just like Paul Koretz is currently doing in nutty land. We can only add one thing - in tune with the polite and civil tone of the antismokers: if you are stupid enough to believe the idiots who tell you - with or without a law - that passive smoke harms your child, then you deserve anything you get - insults included.
Intolerance August 17 [14:40 GMT] - Can you imagine becoming a non-smoker...? - In Australia they are now kicking non-smokers out of smoking areas to comply with the latest idiotic total smoking ban. No, I'm not smoking the funny stuff, just tobacco. And you read it correctly: if you are an Australian non-smoker and you venture into a smoking area, you had better learn to smoke right fast (not such a bad idea, after all), or a couple of big bouncers will come for you. - By Gian Turci
August 17
[14:40
GMT] -
From smoke-free
to child-free in one short, easy step
- No doubt, intolerance is growing like itching powder under our skin.
"Eateries from California to Massachusetts have posted signs on doors and menus
saying “We love children, especially when they are tucked in chairs and well
behaved” or “Kids must use indoor voices.” In North Carolina an online petition
was started last year to establish child-free restaurants — the petition loosely
compared dining with children to dining with cigarette smoke." ' Well,
a decent restaurant allows dining with both, and one that does not allow
either is certainly not worth walking into. These people must be hit where it
hurts and in the only place that matters - the cash register. At any rate, a
universal law applies universally: once intolerance is legitimized it will apply
universally, thus becoming its own perverted version of "justice for all". August 16 [18:25 GMT] - Updated Meta-Analysis on ETS and Coronary Heart Disease Mortality in the US - Results: "An objective assessment of the available epidemiologic evidence indicates that the association of ETS with CHD death in U.S. never smokers is very weak. Previous assessments appear to have overestimated the strength of the association." We have now obtained the Enstrom and Kabat meta-analysis on passive smoke we mentioned on the 11th. As promised, it is now available to our readers. If would be nice if the antismoking cons would substantiate their side of the story in the same way as we do, wouldn't it? But it is not going to happen for a simple reason: they are lying. The study will be permanently stored in the The Evidence, List Of Studies On Cardiovascular Disease In Aged Non-Smokers Who Have Been Asked To Guess Their Exposure To Passive Smoke Throughout Their Entire Lives. Harassing smokers August 16 [18:20 GMT] - Butt-heads are obsessing about beach butts once again - The headline and contents of this story conjures up images of Massachusetts beaches awash in a veritable mountain of cigarette butts. The antis and their compliant media stooges constantly use stories such as this one to fan the flames of intolerance and hatred toward a large segment of the population in their ceaseless quest for power and money. The statistics provided by the antis (who else would go through the bizarre ritual of digging through bacteria-infested filth to count the cigarette butts?) inspired us to do a little math. Useful research August 16 [18:18 GMT] - Cancer found to spread among world's dogs as a parasite - Although we often bash epidemiology of the multifactorial kind that "attributes" causality (while unable to do so by definition) to the politically convenient target, it must be said that epidemiology -- before it was politicized, and when used as a legitimate tool for tracking the spreading of diseases (often of the monofactorial type) -- has been one of the most useful tools for eliminating or bringing real epidemics under control. This study may belong to that kind, as it shows the spreading of cancer from dog to dog as if it was a virus or a bacterium. The transmission of cancer in dogs could yield interesting and revolutionary knowledge where so much of this disease is still a dark mystery. If "public health" were truly interested in the health of people, it is in research like this where the money should go, not to to junk science with statistical attributions coming from guesses about statistics and based on data collected with questionnaires. At least we would get somewhere other than prohibition. Big Pharma August 16 [18:11 GMT] - Patent nonsense: evidence tells of an industry out of social control - This interesting paper in the medical journal CMAJ is worth reading because it describes an industry out of control. The word "smoking" is not mentioned once in this paper, which concerns itself with the prices imposed on drugs and the formidable power of this industry. As we know, Big Pharma is definitely the largest single engine behind the statistical frauds on smoking, the resulting formentation of public hysteria and thus the smoking bans. BP has at its disposal (and under its control) many of the scientific journals, much of the mass-media (advertising budgets) and a lot of corrupt health "authorities". Indirectly, many people in good faith are influenced by the misinformation and propaganda on smoking that is relentlessly pumped out by antismoking groups largely financed by BP. Strangely enough, a lot of people don't like BP - they hate it, in fact. But when it comes to antitobacco, those who have been brainwashed by BP's own propaganda welcome its interference. It is the idiotic mentality that pervades society today: "I love you, but I hate your smoking" (message: dissect your personality, I only want what I like of it), or "I love BP's antitobacco, but I hate the industry". In short, they want to have their cake and eat it too - and they don't understand that it cannot be done. Legal context August 16 [17:59 GMT] - Is the use of outside private attorneys by Attorney-General’s offices compromising the legal process? - In a practice that was set into motion by tobacco lawsuits, the state is – without competitive bids and largely secretly – contracting portions of multi-million dollar lawsuits to the private sector. Critics say the practice raises a host of worrying questions about conflict-of-interest and transparency in the justice system. The practice "increasingly threatens the independence of the attorney general and creates a conflict between public benefit and private profit," a former Virginia attorney general contends. August 16 [17:50 GMT] - Smoking bans are an assault on liberty - Columnist Søren Højbjerg explains the property rights issue from a libertarian perspective, arguing that government has no business regulating smoking policy in private business. Check out Current Ideas August 16 [17:42 GMT] - Current Ideas: an interesting personal blog - We are glad to signal to our readership that Dr. Jeffrey Schaler, member of the FORCES Honour Committee, has now opened a brand new personal blog. Schaler is a prominent psychologist in the United States, and he belongs to the school of Thomas Szasz, also part of the FHC. Smokers' airline!
Interestingly, a CNN online poll that asked the question, “Would
you board a flight if smoking was allowed?” resulted in 43 per cent of the
respondents, even in these intolerant times, saying that they would. One can
assume that the percentage of smokers alone would be considerably higher. It’s
interesting anecdotal evidence that the intolerance propaganda of the
anti-smoking brigade hasn’t been perhaps quite as effective as planned.
For those who are interested, the plutonium deal goes like this: as there can be infinitesimal traces of plutonium in the dirt, then one can assume that some atom is absorbed by the tobacco plant; after the atom survives the transformation of the plant into cigarettes, we then can assume that the atom is inhaled by the smoker, and then exhaled again. These jokers in turn assume that this gets into the nonsmokers' lungs where - of course! - it stops and goes no further. It is the same old story: with modern equipment we can measure one molecule - so what?... It's the dose that makes the poison. When, one day, antismoking activists are tried for fraud as they should be, it will be fun to go measure how many atoms of the transuranium element neptunium are present in smoke-free air and in nicotine patches - just for the fun of it. One thing we can guarantee right now: we shall find them - at least an atom or two. August 13 [10:44 GMT] - Oral cancer: we just know it's smoking; we just don't know who, what, why, where, and when - One quick way to tell an antismoking epidemiological trash study from a real study right off the bat is to look for the "ideological statement", to be found usually at the beginning of the paper. It says something to the effect of: "As we KNOW that smoking causes cancer (a conviction far less disputable than the most fundamentalist religion) this study will do its very best to reinforce the credo". Time for the shredder, as the declared bias of the "researchers" has already fouled the results. This is the case of this study, amongst so many: GIVEN that smoking causes oral cancer, let's now investigate how other factors interact. Diet? Age? Alcohol? Genetics? Oral sex? The hell with that all, it's smoking we are after -- all the rest is just an aggravation. How many people has the study examined? A whopping crowd: "... 56 men and women between 30 and 80 years of age. Approximately half of these were chronic smokers, defined by a history of smoking at least 10 cigarettes daily for at least the past year." Wow. Here come the caveats:
The whole piece is an exercise in sheer speculation; the sample is too small to be serious and has an age span of 50 years - a totally desperate exercise. But it does serve one purpose: just quit smoking and everything is gonna be alright - in the meantime "we uncovered some interesting relationships between smoking and nutrient distribution that deserve further exploration" - that is, "give us more money, we are chronic takers".
August 13 [10:37 GMT] - Engaging an antismoking "professional" - We link to the blog of Mark Wernimont A.K.A. Marcus Aurelius. Wernimont, a non smoker, has engaged the "professional" antismoker James Repace, who is amongst those responsible for the spreading of the passive smoke fraud. Repace's main approach to prohibition is to measure the tiny amounts of pollutants in passive smoke directly, and then infer that such minuscule quantities affect the health of people. Repace wilfully ignores the first principle of toxicology (it's the dose that makes the poison) and then, using the epidemiological trash science notion that "passive smoke kills", he tries to link the junk science with his ridiculously tiny measurements to show that there is a "scientific" causality. Nice try, Mr. Repace: as health authorities are corrupt, your approach may work politically, but you still are a farce of science. Marcus Aurelius, obviously a competent fellow, provides a mountain of links to scientific and legislative reference materials that Repace has to contend with - not an easy task. Why would Repace do all this? Easy: he is paid well. And who pays him? Big Pharma, of course. When faced with the evidence he replies: "Everybody gets funded by some organization". That may be true and even acceptable to an extent. But for some mysterious reason, if the organization is the tobacco industry the statement is not acceptable. Big Pharma doesn't start its marketing efforts by baldly selling us on smoking cessation products (that comes later). First, the market has to be created - and that is done with smoking bans. How? By conning the public with the belief that passive smoking harms non-smokers. The con job is justified with the "noble" intent that prohibition makes smokers quit. Smokers are told they are addicted to a carcinogenic substance - and that's where Big Pharma's smoking cessation trash comes in. There is no scientific proof about the causality of cancer by smoking; we just have epidemiological statistics. "But that's not science!" the informed person may say. Well, that is exactly when the farce of the "public debate on smoking" ends - and silence begins. After all, "everybody knows" that "smoking kills", right?... What more proof than that do we want?... At any rate, Repace is making a mistake: he is engaging his opposition on (junk) science. That is a political no-no for the antitobacco criminal enterprise, and Repace will be punished - sooner or later. Keep up this behaviour, James, and your life line will dry up before you know it. Not that our hearts bleed -- but allow us to borrow a phrase so dear to your kind: we say that for your own good.
|
halls,
and some bars and restaurants are required to report financial information to
the state every year. The state hasn't had a chance to look at the figures since
the smoking ban took effect. I have. It looks like "no smoking" means
economic devastation for the non-tribal gaming industry."
August
17
[
