This interesting piece published by the Republican American reports on the latest abuse of the legal system by antitobacco marionettes in Washington, DC.
A man with coronary disease wants a federal judge to impose a smoking ban in Virginia so he may patronize restaurants there without having to inhale secondhand smoke. In his piece "Analysing the inverted principles of healthism", our columnist Gian Turci recently analysed the moral and ideological perversion of the antitobacco ideology as applied to cases like this, so we will not repeat what he said already.
The intent of this good article is obviously to show that the passive smoking hysteria is based on false information. Nevertheless, the short closing paragraph is double-edged: “It has been said the goal of anti-tobacco zealots never has been about protecting non-smokers, but getting smokers to quit. Can’t this be done without abusing science and the Constitution?”
A duty of the state to get its citizens to quit or start habits or ways of life is implied — not by Republican American, but by the many who said that the passive smoking fraud is a "good tool" to get smokers to quit. That not only is offensive to the maturity and dignity of all citizens, while legitimizing institutional fraud, but it automatically excludes those citizens who are the target of the social engineering from having the right to lead their lives according to their choice.
Such a “duty” of government is not implied by any Constitution in the world, certainly not the American one, and it has never been established through a political vote or referendum anywhere in the world. It is a sanctimonious "duty" that bigots and busybodies, who make money by spreading frauds, have appointed themselves with.
There is another, very naïve implication, to which the magazine itself betrays some deference: “Can’t this be done without abusing science and the Constitution?” The answer is no. As we’ve said, there is no legitimate reason for sanctimony, thus it depends on fraud. Lifestyle engineering is being rationalised via epidemiological fraud, an abuse of science, an abuse of truth, a vicious abuse on personal dignity and freedom. Lifestyle engineering is an unconscionable intrusion into citizens’ lives. It can only be accomplished by demolishing the personal liberties that distinguish a free nation.
The authors of the American Constitution would be appalled. That document was written in a time when antitobacco and its epidemiological frauds did not exist and could hardly have been imagined. Protections were not given to smokers, drinkers, fat people and so on, because their freedom and human dignity was inherently recognised in those times and in the founding documents.
That respect is gone. The evils of technocracy and its social engineering are going to have to be addressed by law now. Social policy must not be dictated by an arrogant bureaucratic elite. This must change, our perspective must change, and new law must reflect this. These changes are urgently required.
Thus the otherwise wonderful Republican American article betrays abidance of a conceptual oxymoron that is unfortunately very common these days: as you can’t have the wealth and comfort of an industrial society without the pollution that comes from its very existence, you cannot have a free society without allowing citizens to make their own most personal choices, free of fanatical dictates and harassment. It’s nobody’s business if you smoke except your own.
Today’s technocrats are the direct philosophical heirs of the eugenicists who ravaged decent societies mere decades ago. Their tools, as before, are junk science, elitism, and elicitation of hatred. Societies cannot allow technocracy, and at the same time call themselves free, or decent. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.