New junk science “study” links smoking bans to decrease in alcohol consumption. So, prohibition works on all fronts. It’s a miracle, let’s prohibit even more! Not so fast: it appears this "good news" is another public health fraud.
“According to Sherry A. McKee, another author of the study, a lot of states have now implemented more extensive smoking bans to cover smoking in areas that serve alcohol. ‘Research indicates that smoking bans can reduce alcohol consumption in bars, particularly among heavy drinkers.’ “
Please read it again to see the trick: “Research indicates that smoking bans can reduce alcohol consumption in bars”. What about outside the bars? It does not compute – and it is not supposed to: of course prohibition reduces alcohol consumption in bars: smokers drink at home! If you go through the verbal shell game, you can easily see that this “study” is an empty shell, meant to confirm the belief that prohibition is the way to go. Banning liberty is good for health and we all know that health comes before liberty.
The final salvo of false information cannot be missed: “Shiffman nods to this and sets as examples Irish pubs where smoking was banned and which eventually encouraged people to quit smoking.”
Every Fascist nods to prohibition, nothing surprising there. A little bit more surprising is the easy-to-detect lie that Shiffman says – but please pay attention to how this professional deceiver puts it. He does not say that smoking actually went down in Ireland; instead he says: “…which eventually encouraged people to quit smoking”, intending to lead the reader to conclude that smoking prohibition decreased smoking in Ireland, but stating only that they were “encouraged”.
Professional conmanship at work once again: in reality smoking went up in Ireland since the ban, and alcohol consumption did not go down. This is not just a lie, it’s a technique – the very technique that created the belief that "smoking kills" without ever being able to scientifically demonstrate one death. It is like showing you a lung cancer patient and askign him if he smoked: if he says yes, YOU have established the "causality". If he says no, but says that his wife smoked, once again YOU have established the "causality". By the same token, if the target is car pollution, the cancer patient will be asked ONLY if he lived downtown; and if he says yes, YOU will have established the causation once again: cars "kill".
A patient who was not exposed to the condition targeted by the behavior engineers simply will not be shown to you. Conclusion: as you have been manipulated into the conclusion that smoking "causes" lung cancer, you will now "know" that "smoking causes cancer" — and you will listen ONLY to the public health shysters who reinforce that belief. The need for proof is therefore being bypassed, as you have been misled to believe that an association is proof of causation, while that is plainly false. Your mind will be closed to anything else – including the fact that you are getting screwed.
Rejoice. There is a comical end to this piece: “Shiffman added that, ironically, alcoholics are more likely to die of smoking-related diseases than from the consequences of drinking.”
Of course! Epidemiological trash science has linked smoking with almost any disease on Earth, so – even by hit-and-miss, and even if you never smoked – you have an overwhelming chance to die from a “smoking-related” disease!
One small point, though: the cons are unable to prove it, so they invent associations and manage to stay out of jail. Not bad.
As we said, this is yet another public health fraud. Keep on drinking and keep on smoking. Smoking ban? Drink and smoke at home and call your friends there.
Link to the Sunray article (stored copy)
Link to the [Junk] Science Daily article (stored copy)