Smokers are truly what blacks used to be in past times: sources of wealth without sharing that wealth, second-class citizens to address with disdain, and “stuff” that can be abused and insulted with a clear conscience.

As we know, the creation of this lifestyle-based sub-citizen class has opened the door, morally and legally, for many more sub-classes already here, or soon to come.

Without indulging in the considerations of how blacks earned their dignity with whatever means was necessary whilst smokers have not (it is easier for a smoker to quit smoking than for a black to turn white, that’s why – so the latter has rights while the former does not), we link to Michael Siegel’s blog for an important commentary on why the proposed tobacco product standards in the FDA legislation make no sense. The commentary shows how absurd the regulatory approach taken by the FDA legislation really is. The reality is that the FDA is not going to know whether or not its proposed changes to cigarette components are going to make cigarettes safer or not. So it is going to use smokers as guinea pigs to figure that out. In the meantime, people are going to be given the implied message that cigarettes are safer – but safer than what? Wouldn’t that be in contradiction with the ridiculous concept that cigarettes are an inherently defective product? As opposed to what, anyway, a perfect product?… Equivocation, junk science, double meanings and dazzling the mind with “expert” incoherence are the only weapons tobacco control has, along with tons of public and pharmaceutical industry money.

In other words, the fraud that the tobacco companies were accused of committing against American consumers by implying a safer product without documentation will now be transferred over to the United States government. Once again, variable standards are applied. That is, there are no standards at all – especially when it comes to any that would nail “public health” to ethics, truth and coherence.

On the one hand, the claimed dangers of smoking are based solely on epidemiology without any truly scientific evidence – but that seems to be no problem at all. Instead, trash epidemiology on active and passive smoking is called “science” so that there is “scientific” evidence of danger with attributions of causality. Easy as pie when there is no one to make you accountable.

On the other hand, the tobacco industry has been found guilty of the “fraud” of attempting to better its product, and to claim to do so. Just stop and think of how intellectually retarded that condemnation is: using the same reasoning, automakers should be punished for improving their products since the number of people who die in car accidents is the same or goes up (and, in that case, the cause is monofactorial). “Consumers, don’t buy our cars! They are defective since you may die because of them!” This is the ultimate self-punishing statement that the neo-Communists of “public health” would like to hear from industries – all industries, that is, except Big Pharma because it pays them off.

On the other hand again (and, please, don’t say that there are only two hands because “public health” is creative!), if the same “fraud” – projecting a safer product – is perpetrated by a health institution it is no fraud at all. Why? Because when we’re talking about a health institution it seems mandatory to view it as implicitly fair, honest, truthful, dispassionate, clean, disinterested, good, generous, altruistic, competent and objective: “public health” only wants your good.

…And when you woke up, what happened?…



Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder