Here it is, once again. The umpteenth, hollow argument against smoking bans. Is this simple ignorance, faith or superstition – or is it just the desperate need to obtain acceptance by conceding, for the most part, that the prohibitionists are on the side of the angels?

We read:

“…I’m not going to debate the countless arguments against smoking and the hazards attributed to it. That is because I completely agree. Yes, smoking causes cancer. Yes, smoking kills huge numbers of people. Yes, it is highly addictive. Yes, it stinks up your hair. Yes, it stinks up your clothes. Yes, second hand smoke is hazardous. YES YES YES YES YES!!!!! All these arguments are completely true and valid.”

No, they are not. Except for what concerns the stinking up of hair and clothes (which is a matter of personal taste: a lot of people love the scent of tobacco!) – which is an objective reality – all those arguments are false and invalid, or at least totally unproven. None of the “hazards” of smoking, in fact, has been scientifically demonstrated – EVER – especially the great cancer battle horse. That is the very reason why the public health cons systematically refuse scientific debate with the opposition on this issue – to the point that they have made a policy of that. All we have are statistics where more cancers are ATTRIBUTED to smokers than non smokers. Read: if you smoke, I believe that your cancer was caused by smoking. If you don’t smoke, I believe that your cancer was caused by something else. There is absolutely and positively NO scientific way to establish the causality — thus the arguments on causality, to date, are reduced to an act of faith in the portrayed consensus of opinions of people who may believe, but have no proof by any and all scientific standard.

But are we talking about beliefs, or science? Let us remember that science requires the strictest standard of proof that agrees with an established scientific method, and that is verifiable and repeatable by other scientists through experimentation. This universally accepted definition of science disqualifies any and all studies on active and passive smoking and any disease. What is left, therefore, is speculations, superstitions and beliefs – nothing else.

So, what is this writer disagreeing with? On whether his country is a democracy or a republic? Who cares? Once could easily argue that, when it comes to public health, the form of government is irrelevant as the issue is not political. In fact, this is exactly what they do, and in so doing they manage to command people politically without the responsibilities undertaken by politicians.

The fact is that – given the inescapable reality that not even one death can be scientifically demonstrated to be caused by active or passive smoking – what is attributed to smoking is not a matter of public health, it’s a matter of institutional, public fraud because it is protrayed as a positively scientific fact. And whether that fraud is perpetrated in a republic, democracy, dictatorship or kingdom is still utterly irrelevant.

So, given that most people (unfortunately) have already chosen to trade all their liberties for the illusion of health, the bans will stay for as long as the public health fraud will stay. It follows that, to fight smoking bans, one has to fight the public health fraud and strip those institutions of their credibility – THEN ears will open up for the song of liberty.

The problem is that people still tend to refuse to accept that they no longer live in free countries, thus they refuse to see the rot at the foundations. But – to close with a scientific metaphore – refusing to see that gravity exists does not change the fact that it does. By the same token, believing that public health institutions are not 100% rotten will not reduce the rot to the 50% that we like.



Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder