In this piece designed to wash your brain “smoking is bad for you”, “stop smoking” and “give up” are repeated like a broken record. Don’t believe it: smarter people do not.
“Government campaigns aimed at persuading people to stop drinking and smoking have little or no effect on poorer people, it was claimed yesterday.”
Once again, faithful to their frauds, antismoking cons try to explain that the only reason why poorer people don’t quit smoking is, “It’s not because they haven’t heard, or don’t know that smoking is bad for you, it is because, on their list of priorities, giving up smoking is way down and they have to turn their attention to more immediate matters”.
In short, the line we are supposed to believe is that the message that “smoking is bad for you” is agreed on and understood universally – it is just that poor people have other priorities (and thus they need more "help" from "public health" – read: interference and behaviour programming). The reality is that the richer classes tend to believe the words of their own, and medical institutions and “public health” belong to the rich, ruling class. So, when that class baffles brains with scientific fraud and other rhetorical BS, those who belong to it become the first victims of their own peers. The easiest person to sell to is a salesman, we all know that!
But perhaps the lower classes understand better that “public health” lies through its teeth to them. Perhaps they understand better than their rich cousins that real science has never demonstrated that one single death is caused by smoking. Perhaps they understand better that the dangers of passive smoking are a conscious, institutional fraud. Finally, perhaps they understand better that “public health” gets payolas from Big Pharma, and that the state is, as always, out to screw them. That is a very wise assumption, which should never be surrendered.
“Smoking has to be put in context when looking at the multiple disadvantages they face” says the epidemiological “expert” who favours the smoking ban in order not to be politically skinned. But that is not good enough for the ASH trash: "They are looking at allowing smoking in exactly the sort of place the poorer people go, like pubs that do not serve food. If we are to protect these people’s health we have to fight these planned exemptions".
In short, prohibition is protection against harm even if there is no proof of harm – and there is no proof of harm. But who asked the ASH trash to "protect" anybody? Nobody. If there is a protection needed it is against the ASH trash mentality, the inverted values it stands for, and the false information it disseminates along with the "public health" institutions it has infected.
From our side we may add that if we have to protect the liberty of all and restore the integrity of institutions, people who speak like that must be punished – and not with a light hand – while the laws they impose must be disregarded.
And it seems that many in England are prepared to do just that.
Long live the smoking, lower classes!