November 17 [7:15 GMT] - J'accuse from England - Blad, a reader from England, sends us an excerpt of one of his postings on The Big Debate forum. We find this one particularly interesting because it concerns the shameful blackmail that British health "authorities" are perpetrating on smokers: quit (and possibly become a customer of Big Pharma) or will treat you not. This seems to apply also to severe conditions that even junk science does not claim are related to smoking. Those authorities are, for all intents and purposes, advocating the murder of smokers while perpetrating fraud, as Blad explains inside. The practice of unilaterally altering social contracts established long ago to force citizens to behave in the way imposed by Big Health is spreading, thanks to the relentless hate campaigns coordinated internationally by the crooked World Health Organization enterprise. In Italy, for example, there is a proposal to chop the salary of smokers by 20 hours a month because of smoke breaks. If the Italian government hadn't been twisted enough to make a law out of a glaring epidemiological fraud and take it to new heights by misrepresenting insignificant results, the smoke break "problem" would not exist. So, people who are already wrongly segregated and taxed to death have to be further punished by unilaterally altering collective social contracts. But that's what second class citizens are there for, isn't it?
Educational tidbits November 17 [7:15 GMT] - Studies Suggest Military Service Increases Risk for ALS - 'There's growing evidence of a potential link between military service and developing amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease, a new report contends. ALS is a rare but fatal neurodegenerative disease. ... "The connection is pretty strong statistically," said Dr. Richard T. Johnson, chairman of the committee that wrote the report and Distinguished Service Professor of Neurology at Johns Hopkins University's School of Medicine. "But the risk [of developing ALS] is small," he added. "It's only a 50 percent increase in risk." ' If you want to know more about this disease, click here. In the meantime, consider the last sentence you read. Fifty percent increase in risk is small. Many important authorities agree that anything under 200% risk elevation is way too small. That means, when it comes to multifactorial diseases (such as cancer or heart disease), that it takes a risk elevation of over 200% to begin to suspect that what we may be looking at one of the causes of the disease we are examining. Risk elevation for passive smoke: 10-30% Add to this insignificant elevation that the information is gathered with questionnaires recalling unverifiable memories of exposure of decades earlier. Now add that all passive smoke studies are flawed for two other reasons, each of them alone sufficient to discard the results.
That's why the proclaimed dangers of
passive smoke are a fraud. Addicted state November 17 [7:15 GMT] - Warning: “Sin Taxes” May Be Hazardous to the State - 'Oregon’s cigarette tax has become an “essential” source of funding for government programs and services completely unrelated to smoking, a prime example of why a “sin tax” is bad public policy.' When absolutely no danger can be demonstrated for passive smoke and when not one death can be scientifically demonstrated for active smoke, the issue of public health become totally hollow - except for the basic concept that smoking (like anything else) in large excess can be harmful. The whole antitobacco enterprise is not about health, and it has never been. It's all about power, money grabbing, social control and engineering. It will expand to all lifestyles. It can be stopped, but the victims of the Therapeutic State need to change their attitude and perception: health authorities are a political animal, and have to be treated as such. The inverted world November 17 [7:15 GMT] - Canada profs win right to smoke pot, or: welcome to the 21st century "public health" - Toronto, University of Toronto. No smoking anywhere, passive-smoke-kills-active-smoke-kills-even-more. No smoking areas or rooms, either. Can't indulge in smoking - except if you smoke marijuana. Then the smoking rooms appear -- as in the case of these two professors. All you have to say is that you are sick, and that the pot is for "therapeutic use". That's it - it becomes a matter of human rights! Never mind that every "therapeutic" effect of marijuana can be had with pharmaceutically synthesised pills - and with much better results. Pills don't get you stoned. ' "Without the medication, I am disabled and I'm not able to carry out meaningful and valuable, productive work," said York University criminology professor Brian MacLean, who suffers from a severe form of degenerative arthritis.' Certainly, that's what the pills are for - available at any drug store through simple prescription. But that's not the point, is it? Tobacco too has many therapeutic effects: better
psycho-motor activity, protection against Parkinson's and Alzeimer's
diseases, and so on. And it does not get you stoned: you can drive
a car and work without killing yourself or anybody else. But tobacco is not
called a medication, and its smokers don't have human rights. They don't have
constitutional rights, either. They don't seem to have any rights at all. Let's
just hope that Prof. MacLean doesn't do his criminology work after taking his
"medicine", or Canada will soon free its criminals and put cig smokers in jail.
Something like that is already happening. They say that
marijuana's smoke
does not causes
cancer. However, the virtually identical tobacco smoke causes cancer. Canada is
working at the denormalization of tobacco smoking and at the normalization
of marijuana smoking. De-criminalizing drugs may even be a great idea, but if
it is done at the expense of criminalizing tobacco it only demonstrates that
too much pot is being smoked in high places. In fact, it would be interesting to know how
many joints the ministries of "health" inhale before their fiery
public speeches
against tobacco smoking. That would explain them all. November 13 [18:25 GMT] - "There is no constitutional right to smoke" - So far, all the legal fights against smoking bans have been based on a variety of rights claims. The results are before our eyes - time after time. We will not belabour the positions already expressed in our paper, but further observations are now in order. Antitobacco and smoking bans are a diabolical machine whose jurisprudence and political approach get perfected with use. Alongside with fraudulent propaganda by health authorities and lavishly paid antismoking activists, this helps to explain the smoking ban landslide everywhere. Case in point this decision in Tupelo. 'Tupelo smokers still can’t light up in public places, but a federal judge has tweaked the ordinance to make it constitutional. U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills declined Thursday to stop enforcement of the month-old smoking ban. But the judge changed some ordinance language he deemed unconstitutional. ... “There is no constitutional right to smoke,” the judge said...' Aside from the obvious consideration that the judge may be an antismoker and himself a victim of propaganda, the insistence on the stand-alone constitutional, property or individual rights approach, therefore, seems to act like some sort of anti-freedom vaccine: the more the liberty virus hits, the stronger the fascist antibodies get. That is, the more the challenges against smoking bans are based on rights, the more the legalities get perfected to make bans bullet-proof against those rights. This also explains why the bans, even if rejected the first or second time, they eventually go through: the legalities have been systematically worked out through experience in the courts. As long as people believe that passive smoke hurts them, they will politically support the ban proponents - and the courts of law, after all, are an expression of current cultural winds and beliefs. Furthermore, as long as people believe that active smoke "kills" and thus smokers are "sick", they will support the bans as a form of "smokers' therapy" even if they are aware that passive smoke is a fraud. That, once again, underlines the importance of widespread education on the epidemiological frauds on smoking in general on one hand, and on the other the need for lawsuits against the junk science on smoking and/or the false representation of that junk science by public health authorities. We are still in time, because the concept that it is OK to have corrupt/incompetent authorities is not yet accepted by most cultures - and the courts of law will reflect that as well -- but even that may change, for it is illogical to assume that all conditions remain stable. Until then, when it comes to smoking, health authorities will successfully bamboozle the public with one indisputable argument: no one has the right to harm another. From Clearing the Air blog November 13 [18:25 GMT] - It's time for a new tactic when considering lawsuits to overturn smoking bans - "Every group which files suit to block the smoking bans seem to use some form of constitutionality argument... and they nearly always lose. How about a new tactic folks... these bans all pass based on the argument / justification of "health hazard"... yet the 2 most comprehensive air quality studies I know of point out that second hand smoke levels are 15 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for second hand smoke....in other words NO HEALTH HAZARD. It's time to challenge the smoking bans on the fundamental claim of being a health hazard... which is false... then we will start seeing a reversal of these bans..." (continues inside) November 13 [18:25 GMT] - Asking the wrong people - Obviously using the usual, brainless parameters for automated search, a rabid antismoking organization sends a message asking for money from Clearing the Air, after happily mentioning the advancement of public health's frauds in three American states. Unfortunately for them, they got the wrong people. Read the rest inside. November 13 [18:25 GMT] - Is secondhand smoke a health hazard? Three separate air quality test results prove the answer is NO - More details on the misrepresentation of instrumental readings by the antismokers are provided by Clearing the Air. As nicotine is the only known element unique to tobacco smoke, Mark Vernimont explains how the instrumental read-outs of antismokers actually indicate no danger whatsoever. Of course, here we are facing the same problem: ignorant politicians and representatives are lied to by the "experts" about the results of the studies - and this is one of the main reasons why these cons refuse all and any public debate on the science. One thing that cannot be overstated is one basic and general rule: exposure does not mean danger, and zero exposure does not mean safety. From Michael Siegel's Blog November 13 [18:25 GMT] - My suggested guidebook for tobacco control advocates for quelling internal dissent - With bitter sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek and based on personal experience, Michael Siegel compiles a list of techniques used by the antismoking gangs to discredit a colleague who even slightly dissents from their dogma and doctrine. As experienced fighters against antismoking activism, we give Siegel a "seal of verification and approval": what he says is true, and we strongly suggest that readers learn and absorb what Siegel has to say in this important posting. However, something even worse is missing from his comments - and for the sake of justice and truth it must be stated here.
That is bad enough for politics (and in fact those practices are typical of totalitarian regimes) - but this is supposed to be a scientific field and a debate -- for the suckers who still believe that! Who said that the USSR is dead? Actually, it becomes clearer every day that the West has lost the ideological Cold War - and certainly not only when it comes to the smoking issue. From The Smokers' Club November 13 [18:25 GMT] - Antis: what to expect - Interesting, humorous and very realistic chart published by The Smokers' Club on the usual and predictable chain of excuses and reactions about smoking bans. Useful for serious anti-ban activism as well as for a chuckle about the stupidity of human nature. UK: The march of crime in the name of "health" November 13 [18:25 GMT] - Nursing a grudge against smokers - A courageous British nurse describes the effects of the epidemiological frauds on smoking in Great Britain: public health blackmails patients by withholding care (for which the citizens pay though taxes) if the citizen refuses to behave according to its will. Medical and nurses' organizations supporting and pushing discrimination while inevitably knowing that passive smoke dangers are a fraud. The list goes on. These people should be taken to court before it's too late, and punished to the full extent of laws against fraud and discrimination, their medical or paramedical licences pulled. It is time for the victims of this shame to rise against these criminals with the necessary force, whatever it takes -- for let's say it ourselves, for a change: the ends justify the means. EU: sovereign nations? A surely obsolete concept November 13 [18:25 GMT] - German constitution caves in to epidemiological fraud - Although Germany is the European country that still respects the rights of smokers, that will not last long. As we know, nothing seems to withstand the pressure of supra-national treaties - and the epidemiological fraud on the "tobacco-related" mortality numbers has evolved into an supra-national treaty thanks to the con job of the World Health Organization and its pharmaceutical partners. Because of the Tobacco Framework Convention, in fact, all countries in the world must officially adopt antitobacco as if the dangers of smoking were all real and scientifically demonstrated, while the opposite is true. Furthermore, they commit to "make it difficult" for smokers to smoke and for the industry to operate. The freedom of expression guaranteed by the German constitution, therefore, means nothing when compared to the indemonstrable mortality figures of the WHO. As is happening in other countries, the breach in the wall of liberty will be quickly followed by other advertisement bans - such as those against alcohol and "junk" food - always in the name of health, of course. Totalitarianism pushes wherever the boundaries of liberty give -- and the future of totalitarianism is in the oligarchy of health and safety committees. Let's put it all together: the WHO assembles the TFC, which in turn obligates the EU to obligate sovereign nation governments to obligate private industry and private people to behave as the WHO wants. What's missing in this picture? The will of the citizens, national self-determination, cultural differences, respect for real or presumed minorities, institutional integrity and, of course, scientific reality. But what's all that next to the will of the WHO and its pharmaceutical partners? Worthless minutia. US: Disposable citizens? You bet November 13 [18:25 GMT] - We need funds for Arts. Taxing property is politically too risky: just tax the "niggers" once again - Yes, yes, we know: it is really bad to use the "N" word. But seldom has the word been more appropriate than in the case of smokers, the latest of a long series of disposable citizens, the first of a series of "politically correct" post-modern pariahs. They are the new, perfect "useful idiots": ready to be taxed to death because they are guilty of pleasure. Throw them out of buildings after making up frauds on passive smoke. Hate them at will, and say that they hurt themselves - and never mind if you can't demonstrate it scientifically. Just treat them like garbage and tell 'em they kill people: they will not mind - and if they do, who cares? In the New Order the smoker has no dignity, and absolutely no rights. Lifestyles are not expressly protected under the constitution (see above)? That sure means open season against those who don't live as we like - with the instigation and the blessing of public health authorities. Just make up some trash science with big numbers - and leave the rest to propaganda - Goebbles teaches. Finally, ignore those who accuse you of killing choice. They are full of it. One can always choose to get fined or go to jail - who's going to interfere with that decision? And if he doesn't want to be taxed to death he is perfectly free to do so - just quit smoking! A hell of a fair and square deal. Moral perversion and insult after injury? You bet. But that's what "niggers" have always been for - until they decide to make themselves respected. But, to that end, what are they prepared to do? (Hint: whining and disgust won't help). November 13 [18:25 GMT] - Voters decide that state government is less trustworthy than tobacco companies: it's about time somebody figured it out - In the dark ocean of horrible news these days sometimes one can see a thin sunray. In Kansas the 80-cent tax increase has been canned by voters. The "experts" say that voters trust the tobacco industry more than the state: for a change they may be right. "Missouri’s Amendment 3 would have generated $351 million for Medicaid and other health-care programs for the poor and for anti-smoking efforts." That alone is reason enough to can any such proposal. Why should one category of citizen be made to support Medicaid more than the rest? And why should a category of citizens pay for propaganda against their lifestyle? Why should they finance a public health fraud? It comes down to trust indeed: how can anyone is his right mind trust "public health", today? US Prohibition: We're baack!... November 13 [18:25 GMT] - Faith in prohibition unabashed - As smoking is now a "disease", it seems only "logical" that the goal is to reduce it, possibly eliminate it. Aside from the usual fraudulent propaganda on mortality and passive smoke, this piece from the Honolulu Advertiser shows very well the renewed faith in prohibition. The number of smokers does not go down according to the Nazi plan Healthy People 2010, timetable of "public health"? Well, forbid public smoking! Perhaps a huge number of the population does not want to quit smoking? Naah, their will is irrelevant because they are sick, so they don't know what they want and what they want doesn't matter - just make it difficult for them to light up and everything is gonna be just fine, we'll straighten 'em up, and they'll be thankful! It is no random coincidence that all totalitarian regimes had strong public health social programs where medical authorities held great power. Nor is it a coincidence that those regimes always wanted to "cure" nonconforming citizens through prohibition and "therapeutic help". Keep on smoking in Hawaii - it's the only way to know that you are still in control of yourself. November 12 [18:25 GMT] - California's Prohibition? - According to the General Accounting Office, increasing cigarette taxes " 'open up a lucrative black market to nasty groups looking for ways to fund their activities. ‘As cigarette taxes increase, so do the incentives for criminal organizations, including terrorist organizations, to smuggle cigarettes into and throughout the United States."
Californians seem to have gotten the message, this time - but let us not delude ourselves. Riding on the epidemiological frauds on tobacco, the antis will be back, and back and back - relentlessly - until their back is broken politically, and legally. And that can be done. Readers' contributions November 13 [18:25 GMT] - The Big Lie - A reader flags us a page of the Wikipedia on line and writes: "Researching something for another part of my life, I just came upon this. Look at the OSS definition of Hitler's philosophy and, um, see what it reminds you of." Indeed. Read the short page - especially the last paragraph - and think about the healthist propaganda.
By all means all members and readers should participate - and see what happens. This, however, gives us the opportunity to comment on something that could be useful in the fight. One of the techniques to "build consensus" for bans is to show that the consensus already exists when in fact it does not. One of the most common ways is the polls - that INVARIABLY show an overwhelming consensus for bans. When a country is about to ban public smoking, some local media run a poll on a sample population. Invariably, in ALL countries we know of, the "consensus" ranges exactly between 78% and 83%. Now imagine if, in the actual affairs of humanity there was that kind of agreement: it would mean the end of wars and all the other calamities that afflict humanity! That kind of inter-cultural, international uniformity is impossible. Thus the polls are the usual deception and manipulation. Internet polls are no exception. Yet, a lot of
anti-ban people really get involved in
this waste of time which is one of the many decoys to draw energy from the
fight. Occasionally "our side" really gets involved and
manages to procure more "votes" than those of the professional antis directed
there from their headquarters. So what? In many instances the poll has disappeared,
to be replaced with a different poll. All this business about worthless polls
results in time and energy consumption that is not spent to
organize politically against antitobacco. Let's ignore decoys -- and keep our eyes on the target: the destruction of the
healthist machine and the clean-up of institutions.
Conversely, if the smoker dies above the average age (as in the case of Jack Palance), his cigarettes, pipes and cigars get conveniently hidden, and the deceased is turned into a non-smoker in the name of "therapeutic" censorship and behaviour manipulation. This is because - if we were to use the same deceptive logic that antismoking propaganda does, we could otherwise say that "had he not smoked, we would have lost him long ago". And if you think that the latter statement is stupid, good for you, you still have smarts. Now apply those smarts to the former statement -- and keep in mind the indisputable fact that not one death can be scientifically demonstrated to be caused by smoking - in spite of all the "authorities" who deceive the public for a living. |
|||||||
November
13
[18:25 GMT]
-
Don't fall for the decoys - We
have received this from a reader: "Dear Forces, as your site reported
today, Nevada voters yesterday passed by 30,000 votes (in a state of 2 million
people) a California-style ban on indoor smoking except for casino floors and
private residences. Not to be outdone, a University of Nevada student government
senator posted a "poll" today to ban OUTDOOR smoking just about everywhere on
campus. The fake poll starts with a yes-or-no question and then proceeds to ask
poll-takers to put checkmarks where OUTDOOR smoking should be banned. The list
includes just about all outdoor gathering spots on campus. The poll results will
then be used to justify the regulation proposed by the senator.
November
13
[18:25 GMT]
-