We present another news round-up including a quiz on the final story.
Reader response to a recent article collection including a quiz was enthusiastic so we present another in the same vein. We thank various contributors for these news article links. Nobody we’ve heard from guessed the answer to the first quiz. The question was, what were the esteemed experts suggesting that would help prevent lung cancer, by the same magnitude purported as the risk difference between those who have smoked and those who never smoked. The correct response was answer P: sniff dung.
Since you’re reading this, you must be taking a brief (and risky) respite from deep-breathing exercises in your barn, so we’ll get right to the latest news stories. First up, following riots, prisoners in Quebec have been allowed to resume smoking outdoors. It’s chilly in Quebec in February you know. This puts the prisoners on the same frozen footing as the rest of Quebec’s citizens anywhere apart from their own homes. How long do you think it will be before smoking wardens begin breaking into those private homes? That’s not the quiz, just a rhetorical question, to which the answer is: probably soon. That also suggests that citizens begin meeting force with force, right now. (original link) (stored link)
The Commonwealth of Virginia has shot down a state-wide smoking ban. Anti will keep lobbying in this tobacco state as everywhere else. Ultimately force will meet force everywhere. (original link) (stored link)
A fellow, also in Illinois, has filed a federal law suit against his state’s ban. He’s doing it without a lawyer. He’s arguing that smokers have human rights the same as others do. He also states that he accepts reasonable restrictions on smoking. We at FORCES have discussed the question of a big lawsuit which could effectively put an end to smoking bans. This would require vast resources. In the current climate it would equate to ending racial segregation in the USA a century ago. It can be done. The bans are a gross and fraudulently-based imposition. However, an ill-funded and ill-considered effort such as this man is making, is counter-productive. He is merely giving the judiciary an invitation to dismiss his ill-prepared (reportedly hand-written) complaint out of hand. This serves, if anything, in the cause of reinforcing the Anti position: which is, plainly stated, that smokers are less than humans, and that reasonable restrictions must grow to include incarceration for the very possession of tobacco. We certainly sympathize with the Illinois man’s emotions on the issue. He is a war veteran who says he feels he fought for a country that now represents what he thought he was fighting against. We can’t say we wish him well. He is going about this in exactly the wrong way, a point underscored by his thinking state-imposed restrictions on enjoying a legal activity may be tolerated, the very kind of thinking that got us where we are today. Good people got along famously on their own intiative regarding smoking, for centuries, before the frantic and fraudulent ban imposers of recent times appeared, foisting "reasonable restrictions" one after another, now including outdoors and within private homes. Well-prepared law suits may be part of a concerted strategy to overcome Healthist fascism. A suit to eradicate this fascism may come and will win when agencies prepared to win receive necessary funding. Ham-handed amateurish efforts are not welcome. FORCES is investigating strategic legal avenues, but as we have stated clearly to our readers, we will not broach a case of the scope this war veteran has blithely undertaken, in a frivolous way. We would not file such a suit without massive preparation and many millions of dollars in the chest. When we have millions in the chest we will let you know. We don’t now. Neither does this fellow. The fight to restore decent society must be fought on many fronts and it must be fought effectively on all those fronts to achieve victory. (original link) (stored link)
Well, now to the quiz, regarding the final article in this round-up. In the last quiz you learned that the scent of feces is just what the doctor ordered to prevent lung cancer. Before you go back to sniff in the barn, or perhaps in a public toilet for you urban dwellers, consider that doctors are now worried that many of us do something else, that increases chances of contracting or decreases the chances of recovering from numerous cancers, including lung cancer. That’s today’s quiz. What is the horrendous cancer-promoting activity that many, even the warned, stubbornly cling to? According to esteemed experts, the Thing You Should Not Do is (pick one):
A.) Sniff dung. (Hint: this is what you should do so this answer may be wrong this time.)
B.) Sniff your pet.
C.) Sniff glue.
D.) Take amphetamines.
E.) Take vitamin supplements.
F.) Make love to your spouse more often than weekly.
G.) Have frequent sex with numerous sex partners.
H.) Live a celibate life.
I.) Dwell on the internet.
J.) Watch lots of TV.
K.) Keep a tidy home.
L.) Let the dust collect.
M.) Use an air purifier.
N.) Get plenty of fresh air.
O.) Stay indoors most of the time.
P.) Use chlorine bleach.
Q.) Use baking soda.
R.) Eat chocolate.
S.) Eat beef.
T.) Eat potatoes.
U.) Eat tomatoes.
V.) Work at a desk.
W.) Work in a sewer.
X.) Nap frequently.
Y.) Kiss a cow.
Z.) Enough already.
Of course you are now protectively sniffing poo at every opportunity, but at the same time, are you doing something else, imperiling yourself? Yikes! The answer — yes it’s really on the list — comes to us from the formerly great and more recently politically correct New York Times at this link: (original) (stored)