Prohibition

History and stupidity repeats themselves -  Everywhere in the world honest citizens are forced to break laws based on a fraud to exercise their liberty to consume a legal product. Political antismoking idiots think that, by not making tobacco illegal, they are not repeating the historical mistake. But, in reality, this mistake is worse than that of the 1920s for both scale and social damage.

August 31 [13:05 GMT] - This ain’t no “overreach”:  it’s an overture - Smoking bans as part of an anti-crime strategy? That’s the party line in Palo Alta, California. And  like the delusional deniers they are, “concerned” commentators just can’t understand what it’s all about. It feels as if the government intends to be oppressive and deceitful, but since that can’t possibly be true – the whole thing must surely be just an “overreach”, some sort of odd-ball mistake. Instead, those of us who have followed the issue for years understand that it is instead an overture to the criminalization of the possession and use of tobacco. Get it? Meanwhile, Palo Alto is waging the war on another front: against its tax-paying businesses who are forced into the position of being smoke-easies.

August 31 [13:05 GMT] - Speak-easies make a comeback - Scottish pubs are breaking the smoking ban, following in the footsteps of Dublin, New York and California. Speak-easies reminiscent of the 1930s prohibition on alcohol are just popping up all over. After hours, doors are locked, curtains draw and the ashtrays so carefully hidden during the day are brought out. Cigs are lit and a good time is had by all. Where there's a will there's a way. Hats off to the rebels and have another pint! Cheers!

Michael Siegel

August 31 [13:05 GMT] - JAMA Article Brings Surgeon General's Misrepresentation of Secondhand Smoke Science to the Forefront - "An article in the current issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), reporting on the recent Surgeon General's review of the health effects of secondhand smoke, brings to the forefront the controversy over whether the Surgeon General misrepresented the science in his public communications surrounding the report's release (see: Kuehn BM. Report reviews secondhand smoke risks: some scientists question risk level. JAMA 2006; 296:922-923)", reports antismoking dissident M. Siegel. Of course, the fact that SG Carmona lied to the public is no revelation to us, as we know that today's "public health" is nothing but a corrupt animal (if it were not, we wouldn't have smoking bans and antitobacco propaganda). However, we cannot afford to become complacent and passively accept as a fait accompli that institutions are rotten - and that's the only intolerance that we'll never get tired of advocating.

Prohibition

August 30 [13:05 GMT] - Scottish anti-smoking politician whimpers over rejection by brewery company - This article is about how a Scottish MP who supported smoking bans got her feelings badly hurt when a local brewery in her constituency apparently “barred” her “from speaking to staff …because she thought the smoking ban was a good thing.” If it’s true, God bless the brewery -- and where can we place an order for some of their fine products? After all, staff who share this lady’s views can always chat with her on their own time – why should the company she’s damaging put up with her presence? That would be as obnoxious as letting a pub owner welcome smokers as customers! This MP is surely a bad role model for local economic development – not to mention civility -- and the brewery has the right to have a prohibitionist-free workplace in order to protect everyone.
The best thing about this piece, however, are the lively comment postings that follow. 
One reader notes that at his local, “pub takings have dropped because you can't get into the place for the crowd of smokers blocking the door.”
 
“If it's anything like it was in Bugsy Malone, I for one cannot wait for prohibition,” crows another, who is obviously either waiting for an economic opportunity or wants to try a new adventure sport.

The passive smoke fraud

August 30 [13:05 GMT] - California senate cons its constituency with fraudulent, junk science-based law - No surprise to any of us, it is now illegal in California to smoke if a child is in your car. We were sure that this bill would pass because in Kalifornia any and all policies to make smoking illegal, to make smokers' lives miserable, to steal their money and to pave the road for tobacco de-legalization is thoroughly and predictably taken. This news, in fact, would not even be worth reporting if it wasn't for the ridiculous absurdity of the "scientific" statements brought forward to justify it. Just read.

Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, said "We all know that secondhand smoke is hazardous". No, we don't, Mrs. Ortiz. We all know, in fact, that all the (junk science) evidence says the contrary. You are endorsing a fraud, and you are lying to your constituency. But the best is still to come: "Children are effectively smoking a pack and a half a day for every hour they are exposed to smoke in a car."  If it wasn't for the sinister fact that a public figure (supposed to represent public interest) is such an idiotic liar, this would be hilarious. Even the brain dead can figure this out. An active chain smoker smokes one cigarette in 5 minutes. To smoke one and a half pack (30 cigarettes) therefore it takes (5 x 30 =) 150 minutes. Now, Ortiz wants us to believe that a child sitting in a car for a 4-hour trip with a person who cannot physically smoke more than 48 cigarettes actually smokes 120!! (By the way, nobody can smoke 48 cigarettes in a row without a break).

Two things are therefore happening to these professional liars: time compresses (150 minutes become 60), and passive smoke becomes compressed active smoke. Ortiz (what's she been smoking?), like many before her, has hitched herself to the political wagon of the "defenseless" child, neglecting to note that in this case they are exposed to something that has not been demonstrated to be dangerous, that parents can and do roll down windows, that traffic pollution exists, that generations of children have grown up around smoking parents with no discernable ill effects. There is no sound reason for demonizing parents in this way, but it will continue nonetheless. This is what happens when fanatical and professional cons get into power - and when the people they govern are too limp to do something about getting rid of them: they get exactly the frauds they deserve.

Theatre of the Absurd August 28 [17:00 GMT] - Keith Richards public tobacco use shocker!  … and more here - Once in awhile, you can be really shocked by someone you think you know well. It’s been decades since Keith Richards (pictured right in a recent public appearance) burst onto the scene with his well-known brand of fun, clean, folksy family entertainment. So who would have dreamed that this veteran youth role model had an ugly underside? Disappointed fans in Scotland recently had the shock of their lives when “our Keith” appeared onstage smoking cigarettes. And not just one, according to reports. Of course, an investigation has been started and charges may be laid, and none too soon if we have our way. Too bad the law is so lax on this stuff. Another illusion shattered, another hero gone.

Keith Richards

Ireland

August 28 [17:00 GMT] - Another Day, Another ASH Lie  - ASH spokeswoman Maureen Moore has claimed to the British Press that Irish bars have experienced no sustained loss of trade as a result of the smoking ban. The fact that over six hundred bars have closed in Ireland since the ban (and are continuing to close at a rate of one a day) is irrelevant to the antismoking minions, who hope that smokers "get used to it" and that the economy, eventually, will "compensate". It's not working: smokers DON'T get used to it, and the economy only suffers. One again, these health Nazis of Marxist inspiration want to bend not just the the rules of science, but also the laws of economics to their lurid agendas. Indeed history teaches nothing to the fools.

August 28 [17:00 GMT] - More stupidity from Ireland - In order to bend the laws of economics first you have to get rid of common sense - and this too has hauling precedents in history. So, in order to fight smoking, the idiotic Irish government will forbid the sales of 10-cigarette packs effective October 1st! This is the paradox that happens when governments become marionettes of tiny, wacko groups such as ASH. Ironically, groups like that get to rule nations in their areas of "competence" without paying any of the political consequences a normal politician would. We have to admit that they are smart: they know an idiot when they see one. And what else is there for the most part in governments and especially in ministries of "health" - other than crooks, that is?...

World's Oldest - All smokers

August 28 [17:00 GMT] - The Big 115: another ancient smoker has a birthday party - A reader tipped us off to this story of the ex-smoker, never-drinker who was already six when the U.S. seized Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898. "I never damaged my body with liquor," said Mercado, who quit a 76-year smoking habit when he was 90.

Happy birthday, Mr. Mercado del Toro!

Michael Siegel

August 28 [17:00 GMT] - New Data Show Decline in M.I. Admissions in Smoke-Free States is Lagging Behind Decline for Nation; Casts Doubt on Helena/Pueblo/Saskatoon Claims - "...These sharp declines in heart attack admissions suggest that the conclusion of recent studies that smoking bans caused declines in heart attacks in Helena, Pueblo, and Saskatoon are highly suspect, as these studies fail to control for the fact that during the same period of time as these smoking bans went into effect, a secular change in heart attack admissions was occurring”, says dissident antismoking activist Michael Siegel - further data to follow on this in his blog. “Obviously, I am not concluding from this analysis that smoking bans cause heart attacks”, he goes on.

But why, Mr. Siegel, you should! And why don’t you want to be a good junk scientist along the lines of all other antismoking groups? Look, it is quite simple and straightforward: the states without a smoking ban have a faster rate of decline of myocardial infarction than states that have the smoking ban - thus smoking bans cause MI! And the data are actually better than those that "demonstrate" that passive and active smoke "cause" cancer, for they are not based on retrospective questionnaires asking octogenarians to recall active or passive cigarettes; these are verifiable hospital admissions!

Conclusions: we have the statistical evidence – who the hell needs scientific proof? We KNOW that smoking bans cause heart attacks! All we need is some ideological postulation and junk statistics, enough to label our hypotheses “scientific evidence”. It also takes a little bit of creative fantasy to make the "right" "attributions" - but we don't wanna say that. Why then do you want to rock the boat - where is your sense of social responsibility?... OK – come on – whose payroll are you on?...

Smoking bans

August 28 [17:00 GMT] - Hospitality industry: fight hard now, wherever you are - A reader sends FORCES these reflections on the strategy of the smoking ban brigade:

“The first targets are usually the largest cities in the county (Illinois profiled here): Chicago in Cook county, Springfield in Sangamon county, Champaign in Champaign county, etc. If successful, they will then attempt to go county-wide with the ban, knowing full well that the majority of county board members represent portions of the cities where the bans have already passed. These city-residing county board members are under pressure by their constituent bar and tavern owners within the city limits to "level the playing field". This, of course, has the effect of forcing the hospitality businesses within the city to change their original stance, which is almost always opposition to the bans.

“ Once some major cities and counties are smoker unfriendly, and the adverse economic effects of the bans become apparent, these cities, counties and their wounded hospitality businesses will support state-wide bans as their only apparent avenue for prosperity and survival.

“ I don't know if this strategy is universally employed, but, to give them their due, it's worked in Illinois so far. For this reason it is vitally important to oppose smoking bans everywhere they are proposed. Just because you aren't immediately affected by today's ban, you will be affected by one soon enough.”

FORCES’ comment: This strategy IS universally employed, so pay attention!

Straightening Up Eaters

August 28 [17:00 GMT] - Garbage in, garbage out, garbage all around… -  “Another pointless exercise in the statistical torture of data that have nothing to confess.” That’s how ace junk science buster and FOX commentator Steven Milloy characterizes a new study that claims “just a few extra pounds” of weight takes years off your life.

Milloy rips into this study for several reasons. One of those reasons will probably seem especially astonishing to junk science newbies who don’t have a grip on how big a scam statistical junk science can be. The “research” in this one is such that “it could very well be that overweight study subjects killed in automobile accidents or violent crimes are counted by the researchers as being killed by their bodyweight.”

Yep, you got it. Garbage in, garbage out. For more on this, click here.

August 26 [21:00 GMT] - Strong reactions of the EU unions to the shameful discrimination against smokers by the EU Commission - With statements such as: "The European Commission has a totally formal and wrongheaded interpretation of the EU law. In the future could somebody not be hired on account of their weight, the color of their hair or their clothes because these characteristics are not in the list?" (Fulvio Fammoni, Italy's CGIL union) or: "The European Commission is perfectly right that the (EU) anti-discrimination treaty does not say anything specifically about smokers. But I don't think that because it's not in the treaty, you can do whatever you want." (Tom Jenkins, European Trade Union Confederation), European trade unions have firmly condemned the European Commission and its condoning of employment discrimination against smokers.

Even antismoking groups have joined the choir: "We never asked for it, it's ridiculous and totally useless in the fight against smoking. Smokers are victims of addiction and they have to be helped" (Gerard Dubois, head of a French anti-smoking association).

To this gentleman, however, we reply as follows: thank you for your compassionate position, sir. However, your help has never been asked for, nor is it welcome. We know that we don't have any addiction. On the other hand, we are convinced that people such as yourself are in need of MUCH help, as they are terminally ill with the Missionary Syndrome - a condition suffered by the mentally handicapped in search of a cause. Those affected torture their victims because they are  incapable of minding their own lives. However, since we are not without compassion, our hand is out to try to help you all back to the health of the mind and - especially - to that of the soul.

Educational tidbits - The epidemiological fraud

August 26 [21:00 GMT] - Some fast considerations on the epidemiological shell game - When you read a truly scientific treatise, the author or authors make use, of course, of references. That is necessary to distinguish a study from a simple opinion piece. So, the author may refer to the work of A, who in turn refers to the work of B, and so on. By following the references the reader will inevitably stumble on one or more authors who can scientifically demonstrate the causality of the phenomenon examined in a way that other authors (or readers) can verify and repeat. Furthermore, the data gathered by all authors has been developed through the use of the Scientific Method.

• Step 1.   Observe some phenomenon in the universe.
• Step 2.   Develop a tentative explanation, or hypothesis, for the phenomenon.
• Step 3.   Test the validity of the hypothesis -- e.g., do an experiment or otherwise collect relevant data.
• Step 4.   Refine the hypothesis on the basis of the results of the test.
• Step 5.   Repeat Steps 3 and 4 until the hypothesis fits the phenomenon. If the hypothesis does not fit the phenomenon, it has not been proven, and a new hypothesis is to be formulated.

Epidemiological junk scientists refer to each other's work in circles, dazzling the readers and dumping responsibilities. The antismoking activists refer to institutional "authorities" to give credibility to their lies. But neither the authorities, nor the "studies" can demonstrate causality scientifically. In substitution, they infer causality through their biased and ideologically motivated opinions and referring to the sheer volume of "studies" that, however, have no scientific value.

Something that SEEMS the same happens in epidemiology, especially - but not limited to - that against smoking. When you read a "study" you see a lot of references, sometimes hundreds of them. The author(s) refers to A, who in turn refers to B, which cites "authority" C, who quotes institution D - and so on through our entire alphabet until, perhaps, Z refers back to A. But none of the authors (or their works) is able to scientifically demonstrate causality. ^[*] Now, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT and it is worth repeating: in real science you will eventually stumble on a scientifically demonstrable causality, but you never will in epidemiology - worse yet when of the multifactorial kind - that is, that against smoking, obesity, and so on. Through dazzling and highly specialized language and graphics, these "researchers" build hypotheses over hypotheses and keep on referring to each other's work. At the end of it all you have a tall building of hypotheses. Media and people get busy with the roof -- but the foundations have never been substantiated.

The "studies" multiply in great number to create the "mountain of evidence" that the press and health authorities trumpet about every day. The "mountain of evidence" grows indeed, but - once again - the causality is never demonstrated because it cannot be demonstrated. This is because epidemiology is statistics, and statistics is not science. That is why epidemiology, by definition, cannot demonstrate causality. And when you hear that it is scientifically demonstrated that (active or passive) smoking causes cancer or any other disease you hear a lie because ALL the existing evidence is statistical and not scientific.

Aside from making a lot of money, therefore, the whole exercise is designed to substitute science with junk science in policy making, and quality with quantity. The end is to dazzle politicians and media while discouraging verification. In other words, the exercise is 100% turned to build a public belief by bamboozling the public itself to think that what it is told is scientific reality - just like physics, mathematics or chemistry, for example. As in other instances in history, trash science (the science that transforms hypotheses and theories into numbers, but never demonstrates anything) is used to advance political agendas of social engineering and marketing, and to justify segregation, social intolerance and prohibition.
________________

^[*] This is quite noticeable in media interviews of antitobacco activists and "experts" all over the world. When they talk about the "scientifically demonstrated", devastating effects of smoking they always refer to some other institution's authority to give weight to their assertions, but never, ever are they willing to discuss the studies. By the same token, they never, ever accept a public, scientific discussion with any opposition. This is a strong indication that these people are well aware of the un-scientific nature of their assertions and thus they avoid verification. Considering the success of their scams, this has become a seriously worrying social issue, since the perpetrators are health authorities and opinion leaders. What is even more troubling is that the media interviewers never feel the need to ask these people if they can prove their assertions scientifically, nor do they ask questions on the reliability of the studies. References to "authoritative" institutions are all it takes. More than ignorance or naïveté, this indicates straightforward bad faith.

Junk science and propaganda

August 25 [12:30 GMT] - Campos: Weight study's data tortured - Just a couple of days ago we were talking about "epidemiological Marxism", and here it comes again - and again about fat. Paul Campos, a professor of law at the University of Colorado, shows in this article how the "experts" manipulate (torture) data to show that overweight and fat people are at risk when they are not. The ideological postulation is that being overweight is "bad" for you, and that puts you "at risk". Don't let reality permit you to disagree! Torture the data and bend the rules until they fit with ideology! We need a nation of healthy people -- even when they are healthy already -- oops, then call that prevention! Long live virtual epidemics, and the power and grants they bring! Long live the Therapeutic State and its epidemiological Marxism, all around the world!

The comments of a US reader: "What I think is going on here, is that really all this boils down to our public health officials finding ways to blame us for our poor health, so they can basically do nothing to address why we spend about twice as much per person per year on healthcare, yet have the lowest life expectancy of any developed nation, about half again as much cancer, heart disease, etc, a higher infant mortality rate than other developed nations, etc. even though we smoke about 2/3 rds as much as most other developed nations. If our public health authorities didn't blame what we eat, drink, smoke for our poor health, (oh! and by the way, for those who do not eat poorly, drink or smoke, we have secondhand smoke) they would have to take some responsibility for failing to do the job we pay them to do."

Rewriting history

August 25 [12:30 GMT] - Tom & Jerry in trouble in for smoking scenes - Yep, even good old Tom and Jerry must be straightened up by the crooks. One idiot picks up the phone complaining that the 65-year-old cartoon shows some smoking scenes and that's all it takes. The idiots at the other end of the phone, instead to tell him to bugger off as they should have, promptly agreed to edit "any scenes or references in the series where smoking appeared to be condoned, acceptable, glamorized or where it might encourage imitation". And listen to the justification: "Ofcom said it recognized smoking was more generally accepted when cartoons were produced in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, but noted that the threshold for including such scenes when the audience is predominately young should be high." It's gonna take a whole lot of smoking for young kids to come out from all this insanity, that's for sure. In the meantime, we have far too high a threshold of tolerance for the notion that one idiot --  who cannot prove one death from smoking (since no "health authority" can) now has carte blanche to prevent EVERYONE from viewing something in its entirety.

Evasiveness

August 24 [15:30 GMT] - Fun with public health (or, where did all the bodies go?) - Libertarian Dave Hitt decided to ask eight prominent anti-smoking operatives to name one person who has been killed by second hand smoke. The results? Inevitably, none of them could do it. Read his amusing account of “hitting” everyone from “Insider” Jeffery Wigand to the perennially slippery Stanton Glantz with the question that no one can answer. And while you’re on his site, check out his podcast page.

Prohibition

August 24 [15:30 GMT] - A significant step on the road to criminalization - In  South Carolina, a significant step towards prohibition has been taken by introducing penalties for minors found in possession of tobacco, specifically, “a $25 fine, community service and forced enrolment in an approved smoking-cessation program.”

Anti-smokers love to use the term “de-normalization” to describe their quest to remake public opinion so that people will acquiesce to rolling tobacco into the War on Drugs. One way to do this is graduated prohibition: smoking sections one day to “accommodate everybody”, smoking bans the next to “promote everyone’s health” and criminal penalties, one step at a time, until a full-scale criminal prohibition is in effect. Although not all slopes are slippery, only the obtuse would deny the evidence that this is the direction of the tobacco wars.

Theatre of the Absurd

August 24 [15:30 GMT] - Diluted smoke shows magical properties in the Bahamas - "Second hand smoke releases the same 4,000 chemicals as smoke that is directly inhaled, but in even greater quantity," Bahamas Health Minister Bernard Nottage recently observed.

Could you run that by us again, doc?...

In seeking to offer a “scientific” argument for his government’s new anti-smoking drive, the health minister of this laid-back island instead proved -- with direct evidence -- that rum punches consumed under a strong sun are linked with a decline in cerebral functioning.