Poll: Which Lie Most Needs To Be Nailed?

Lots of suggestions for Tobacco Control’s biggest lie. So I thought I’d create a poll to ask: What’s the Tobacco Control Lie that most needs to be nailed? Only one answer can be chosen.

I think I’ve included more or less all the suggestions, and I’ve added a few more that have come to mind while constructing the poll. There are probably hundreds more that could be added. Further suggestions are very welcome.

In the comments, echoing other commenters, Jax wrote that the SHS myth was ‘anti-smoking’s very own “original sin,” from which all the others have freely flowed.’ So I’m sort of expecting that Secondhand Smoke Kills will top the poll, because as she says it’s a deliberate lie.

For myself, I think that it’s Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, because it’s the one most deeply lodged in the public mind, and one which many smokers believe too, and because it’s the lie upon which the SHS lie was constructed to create the Tobacco Control edifice of lies. Once that one was believed, more or less anything could be believed. But, while I think the claim is untrue, I’m not really sure whether it was a deliberate lie. Although since it goes all the way back to Nazi Germany, it probably was a perfectly deliberate lie.

There are also the forgotten lies. When smoking was first fingered as the cause of lung cancer, it was smoking cigarettes that was seen as the problem, because cigarettes were a new way of smoking that only became popular during World War I. Nobody would have believed that chewing tobacco, or smoking pipes and cigars, could cause lung cancer, because people had been doing that for centuries. But, fairly soon after cigarettes had been widely accepted as a likely cause of lung cancer, all tobacco products were lumped together and the distinction lost.

Another forgotten lie was the early claim that Tobacco Control only wanted to create a few smoke-free environments on planes and buses, and had no further ambitions in this direction. That didn’t last long.

I’m not sure of the psychology underlying this ready resort to lies. In large part it must be that antismokers regard their lies as “white lies”: lies told in a good cause. They seem to think that if some lie will get a few smokers quit smoking, then it’s a lie worth telling. The end is the only thing that matters, and the means of getting there doesn’t matter at all.

But the trouble with telling lies is that one lie regularly requires subsidiary supporting lies, and eventually the construction of a separate reality. And this is pretty much what Tobacco Control have done.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that such edifices of lies must eventually collapse. But perhaps they can be helped to collapse, rather in the manner that “hiding the decline” (of tree ring temperature proxies in the late 20th century) in the Climategate emails helped bring about a collapse of faith in climate science. That’s why I’ve been wondering which of Tobacco Control’s multitudinous porkies is the best one to stick a pick-axe into.

In fact, I rather suspect that Tobacco Control can dimly see the writing on the wall for them, and that’s one of the reasons why the lies are coming so fast and furious these days (hidden displays,  plain packaging, etc). They know that public trust is collapsing, but they want the gravy train to stay on the rails for a few years more yet. Because it’s been a nice little earner. And anyway, when they are finally met with public disbelief and derision,  they’ll just walk away from it.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Poll: Which Lie Most Needs To Be Nailed?

  1. There are so many it’s hard to pick one out, but I have to run with the “Secondhand smoke kills”. Without that they never would have gotten the drones on their side and caused so much damage to the hospitality trade. This was, after all the lie that “denormalised” the smoker in the public’s eyes.

    [And I finally cracked how to comment on this site at last!]

  2. Junican says:

    I agree with Grandad. It must be SHS. It is SHS which has been the foundation of smoking bans because it bypasses personal freedom.

    • Mr A says:

      This! A thousand times this! Without the SHS myth the whole concept of “being exposed” to secondhand smoke would never have moved beyond being a personal like or dislike and there would have been no reason for any bans. Of course, TC are now so entrenched they don’t even bother using health as a convenient excuse (see outside smoking bans).

      But there are so many others…. ASH being a good guy charity that only cares about health; the exaggerated impact of active smoking on the smoker (I accept it’s better health-wise to not smoke but the effects are wildly exaggerated); smoking bans not being destructive to the economy; smoking bans being popular…..

      God, virtually everything they say is a lie. Since I started examining their pronouncements in 2008, I haven’t come across one that has been even slightly truthful. Not one. Shameful!

    • beobrigitte says:

      I agree. The SHS lie opened the prospect of smoking bans and a “smoke free world” without anyone asking to explain this a little further….

  3. Whew… rough one, but I went with the NSL vote. Secondhand smoke fear is the main weapon used by the tobacco control industry and Antismokers are totally incapable of mounting an argument that the low levels of exposure in decently ventilated places cause any harm: they have NO research to back such a claim up at all: just rants from “important people,” advocacy factsheets, websites, generalized comments in reports referring to allergens, etc etc.

    Most of your suggestions have zero votes at the moment. That doesn’t mean there’s anything WRONG with them… just that we may not see them as effective as a place to concentrate our general “educative” energies on.

    - MJM

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Just to spread a lil good news we got ourselves a win and a city councilman even put out the word to show up and protect liberty!

    North Charleston South Carolina rejects smoking ban

    http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120919/PC16/120919069/1165/north-charleston-rejects-smoking-ban

    HICKS COLUMN: Smokers, or personal freedom lovers, unite
    •Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:06 a.m.

    http://www.postandcourier.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20120919%2FPC16%2F120919104%2F1005%2Fhicks-column-smokers-or-personal-freedom-lovers-unite

    SORE LOSERS EHH!

    Jaime Morris
    09/19/12 at 07:01 PM


    •I love how only two uneducated supporters showed. I guess you can’t do all the thinking for North Charleston and it’s citizens. Time to move forward North Charleston and stop being ignorant and behind in the times. Summney is a moron and so are his posse of followers ie Aslter, Jerome, and Williams who cannot think for themselves. Time to lose the dead weight, only sucks we are stuck with idiot “leadership” for thr next few years. Maybe one day we will catch up with the rest of America..

  5. waltc says:

    SHS kills is, as jax put it neatly, the “original sin,” the root of all evil, and the central tenet of the evangelical religion of Antismoking. Without it, there could be no bans, no denormalization, no basis for rallying The Public against us. Without it, why would the public care if 70% or 2% of us wanted to quit any more than I’d care what percentage of The Public wanted to stop biting its nails. Nor would I give a crap if 400,000 or 12 of them died from cuticle poisoning.

    The problem lies in proving SHS is a lie since it’s nearly impossible to do it in court. American courts use something called “Rational Basis” on which to judge. And Rational Basis means only “could a rational person believe something’s true, whether or not it is.” And since the courts think it’s sane to believe the Surgeon General (and Stanton Glantz) …there goes the game. Been there and done that. Add to that the fact that our Galileo’s are martyred and where do we go from here?

  6. nisakiman says:

    Although it wasn’t the lie I suggested yesterday, I have to go with the majority on the “SHS kills” lie. That is something that always was the Holy Grail for the Tobacco Control Industry. It is probably the biggest lie, and it has caused the most damage economically and socially. Were we to have even a small fraction of the amount of funding TCI has, it would be the easiest to prove as a barefaced piece of propagandised social engineering with absolutely no basis in reality. Truly, it is the Achilles heel of TCI, and something they can only maintain for as long as they control the MSM.

  7. I agree that SHS is their greatest asset at the moment. We’ll have to find someway of disproving that and their whole dishonest edifice will come tumbling down. The public will then start to question all the other statements that they have been fed.

    Interestingly I’ve been conducting a poll on your “70% of smokers want to quit smoking.” in my side bar which seems to indicate that the opposite is true.
    Out of 210 votes cast 88.1% DONT want to give up smoking, 3.8% DO want to quit, 1.43% NOT SURE, and 6.7% polled OTHER. (I’m intrigued about the vote for OTHER, BTW).

    What we need is someone with the money and integrity to actually look in depth at the issue of SHS kills.

    • Mr A says:

      Just a guess but maybe “other” are those people who perhaps smoke 20 a day but would rather not do so. However, they don’t want to give up, either – in an ideal world they’d smoke fags like cigars – after a good meal, on a night out next to a roaring fire etc, but as it is they smoke more. Alternatively, they could be “social smokers” – they only smoke a few every so often when out. They don’t want to give up the way they currently approach smoking or, maybe, they don’t even see themselves as smokers at all. Could be a few reasons for such a seemingly odd response.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I noticed that poll of yours. Very interesting.

    • beobrigitte says:

      What we need is someone with the money and integrity to actually look in depth at the issue of SHS kills.

      Good point, I agree. The mechanism of which this is supposed to occur needs to be elucidated. Spare us no detail!

  8. Margo says:

    yes, the SHS is my choice too, for all the excellent reasons already given. But – as nisakiman and waltc imply – we really need one we can prove beyond a shadow of doubt. Can we demonstrate and prove that the graphic images on packs are faked?

  9. Steve Kelly says:

    All the choices on the list are worthy of debunking but “secondhand smoke kills” (hand in hand with “no safe level …”) is the king among the Big Lies. I get Frank’s point about “smoking causes lung cancer” and I think it’s important to point out that “cause” is misused in such statements but I also think it hurts our cause if we seem to suggest that habitual smoking is a health regimen.

    Enough smoking, over a long enough time, increases risk of lung cancer: some smokers will get it and some won’t (even as some never-smokers will also get it), but statistically long term smokers as a group increase their risk. That is clear.

    What this suggests logically is that considerable smoking invites lung cancer (something like fertilizer) while smoking is not appropriately designated as a cause (something like the seed). In casual conversation that distinction might not seem important, but in terms of analysis and real understanding, it’s an absolutely vital distinction to make. Words mean things. The right words mean the right things and the wrong words mean the wrong things.

    The childish medico-prohibitionists haven’t the brains to understand this and I agree that their insistence on using “cause” regarding smoking and lung cancer (as well as other health problems) was the launching point for all the fallacious anti-logical fanatical nonsense they’ve gone on driveling into infinity.

    It’s also true that cigarettes are the big problem in terms of health issues, and relevant to that, cigarettes could have been modified decades ago to reduce the risk to practically nothing. The fanatics put the kibosh on that and still do. They insist there can be no safe or even safer ciggie and that everybody has to “quit or die”.

    In the last couple years there have been a few encouraging signs. Anti fanaticism hasn’t taken root as well in some areas as it has in its absolute kingdom, which is, the English-speaking countries.

    There’s been some give in Europe, especially Holland, and even in one place in the Anti kingdom: Nevada in the US has rolled back bans. (Nevada — something like the Holland of the USA when it comes to personal behavior — has long permitted rampant gambling and also prostitution.)

    I don’t make too much of Prop 29′s defeat in California. It’s nice but I think that vote was more anti-tax and anti-bureaucracy than it was anti-Anti. The Food and Drug Administration in the US also recently suffered a court defeat, anent cigarette packaging, but may nevertheless get its way in the end.

    At the same time, though, most of the US, Canada, the UK, and Ireland are Hells on Earth, and New Zealand and Australia are moving closer than ever to total prohibition, while countries of the former USSR, previously reluctant about Anti tactics, are now moving closer to Anti.

    I wish Anti fanaticism would go away as did tulip madness, witch burning, US alcohol Prohibition, and other fanatical movements of the past, but I don’t know when or if it will. Signals are mixed. In the Anglo countries signals are nauseatingly dismal. I don’t detect any end anywhere in sight there.

    Antism is a worldwide religion (a debased cult). Most people who don’t actually join it nevertheless salute it. It makes you sick. I figure it’s going to go on making us sick and sicker long into the future.

    I would not be surprised to see possession of tobacco, or of lots of other things we commonly use today, become serious crimes in the years to come. I can imagine a War on Tobacco (and maybe on liquor once again, or on Coca-Cola, meat, sugar, etc., ad infinitum) — like the current hopeless but firmly entrenched War on Drugs — extending into centuries.

    Antism should have been nipped in the bud decades ago. It wasn’t and I don’t know when or if it ever will be. Folks like us see it for the chronic sickness it is but there just aren’t all that many folks like us. I wish the public at large would wise up but I do not expect that.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      I also think it hurts our cause if we seem to suggest that habitual smoking is a health regimen.

      Me starts to wander about Steves sympathies and where they lie since this is your second post ever here.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Perhaps Steves a plant from the nazis with special sociopathic skills to undermine the pro-smoking groups and individuals. His swill above would point in that direction. Problem I see is he posts once to gain a foot and acceptance by the group or individuals like myself. Then I see the soft spoken negatively charged knock on comments meant to demoralize. I say your a fraud STEVE!~

        • Barry Homan says:

          I got that vibe too

        • Frank Davis says:

          I think you might be being a little harsh there, Harley. The smoking-causes-lung-cancer thing is something that smokers are divided about. For example Chris Snowdon believes it, and we had a big debate on my blog about it 18 months back. And I think quite a few other smokers do too. From what I’ve read of Steve Kelly’s comment (I haven’t read the whole thing yet), he simply comes over as belonging to the Snowdon persuasion. I don’t think that makes him an antismoker, exactly.

        • nisakiman says:

          You’re mistaken about Steve Kelly, Harley. He is the author of this piece here:

          http://www.olivernorvell.com/ThePlainTruthAboutTobacco.pdf

          Assuming it’s the same Steve Kelly, that is.

        • beobrigitte says:

          The smoking-causes-lung-cancer thing is something that smokers are divided about.

          Ok. Prove it. If smoking/”passive” smoking solely causes lung cancer there would not be any other cause.
          This raises the next question: which type of lung cancer is meant?

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Come what may, His post was full of doom and gloom outlooks. More akin to denormalization tactics of the Nazis. Quite suttle but very over powering in its delivery.

        • Mr A says:

          I don’t think he’s a shill. I agree that there isn’t much to be optimistic about at the moment. Look at Australia – it’s hard to see how much worse things can get over there, and looking at the comments section of Aussie papers it seems that the anti philosophy is pretty much accepted as “normal” by the man in the street. Ditto pockets of the US notably New York and California. Then of course, we have that recent EU directive which was talking about banning efags and limiting the number of types of ciggies that could be stocked by retalilers. At least in the UK it seems that much anti-thought is limited to the TC industry, the MSM and politicians – most normal people on the street seem resistant to the billions being spent on denormalisation. But that, and the recent removal of Milton and Lansley from the DoH seem like pretty small sparks of hope in the onward march of the zealots, sadly….

    • Fredrik Eich says:

      Steve,
      I like your seed and fertiliser analogy. We know that almost 100% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV. No HPV means no cervical cancer (the seed). Yet the anti smoking lobby maintain that smoking causes cervical cancer (fertiliser) and for passive smoking they managed to get relative risks of ~4 (which is both very good for them and highly biologically implausible). Most likey this excess risk is due to differences in sexual activity that just happens to be linked with smoking activity, or it certianly could be true. If we can conclude that a RR of 4 for passive smoking and cervical cancer (no seed and no fertiliser), is it such a stretch to believe that an RR of 4 … 10 for smoking and lung cancer is also neither seed or fertiliser?

      On the point of the safer cigarette, If I had my anti-smoking hat on, I would point out that if it is true that the carcinogens in cigarette smoke can only possibly account for <4% of lung cancer (see link below) then how can you make a safer cigarette – it's the smoke that causes it! So we need to get rid of the smoke! Then that poses two questions
      1, How do you make cigarettes significantly safer when the removable chemicals only acount for <4% of LC.
      2, Does the fact that there is so few chemicals that could cause cancer in cigarettes weaken or stengthen the theory that smoking is a cause of LC (fertiliser or seed)?

      http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/584.full.pdf+html

      • Margo says:

        ‘If I had my anti-smoking hat on’?? You’ve got one? I should burn it fast if I were you, or it’ll do something very nasty to your brain. (Ask Michael McFadden – he wrote a book about it).

  10. zobbitbrat says:

    I’ve gone with the majority too and for much the same reason. But the ‘no safe level’ mantra was first applied to active smoking and this, I believe, was the original ‘original sin’.

    There’s a wonderful study – http://www.data-yard.net/science/therapeutic/wilsonphs.pdf – showing that moderate smokers enjoy better overall health than even non-smokers. Sadly, the document seems to have vanished since May, when I last accessed it, and isn’t listed in the wayback machine archives. It pre-dates our current anti-smoking hysteria (pubished 1965 I think), and was an American household survey signed off by the then Surgeon General. It covered numerous chronic conditions and found that light smokers (up to 10 a day, and, in some instances up to 20 a day) suffered fewer of these than any other group. The unhealthiest people were ex-smokers, closely followed by very heavy smokers. It’s easy to see that by lumping all the smoking catagories together, you get an average smoker who is, statistically, less healthy than never-smokers, but this masks the benefits of light smoking. If only we could nail that lie, any talk of ‘second-hand smoking’ would be instantly rubbished.

    • Barry Homan says:

      I smoke 20+ a day, but they’re ultra-lights. My doctor said I had a 98% lung capacity! I don’t even exercise, or do sports, I rarely ride a bike even.

      Healthwise, I feel fine for 52 years. I take NO meds for anything – don’t need ‘em. My all-night partying days are behind me, but I stay active, get outdoors, get involved with things. I like being around people, and enjoy life while it’s here.

      I do what feels natural for me, smoking is a part of that.

      • Mr A says:

        I’ve recently switched to ultra-lights and my resting heart rate fell to the high 50s and my heart rate when jogging fell by about 10 beats per minute. AND I still get to smoke real fags! This must really annoy the antis who would like to portray someone who has smoked 20 a day for 23 years as wheezing when getting out of bed. Unfortunately for them, I have my first half -marathon in a month. Up yours, ASH!

        • beobrigitte says:

          I am 55 and drove a skiing slope (some indoor skiing place) “security” nuts yesterday. After 10 minutes and being told how to do turns, I went to the very top of this slope and went down it. It took 2 more goes until I did it without falling. It took 20 minutes each time (!) to tell this guy that I am fine with “hitting the deck” and to stuff this health&safety lark.
          He gave up on telling me that I was not allowed to go to the top; I was a PAYING customer, after all, and I did manage to keep everyone else “safe”. After my third go (I did NOT fall), I asked this me-shadowing-security-guy for an ashtray. I had done what I thought would take 2 hours in 40 minutes and wanted a ciggie break to set my next goal.

          So much for the “wheezing” smoker………

  11. kin_free says:

    Many are opting for SHS for all the reasons given, but I think it to all intents and purposes it has already been discredited and there is little more that can be done to raise more awareness other than to keep repeating the truth. I think the SHS lie(s) is generally seen as one of those ” “white lies”: lies told in a good cause.” because at the end of the day the overriding belief is that ‘smoking kills’ – end of story, and eradicating it by any means is still considered to be a good thing.

    My initial option would be the same as yours Frank, but it is probably the hardest to disprove given that it is entrenched in most peoples psyche after decades of propaganda. My considered option is one you have not listed but is commonly used in conjunction with some of the ones you have listed, for emphasis:-

    “There is no benefit whatsoever to smoking”.

    Many people unquestioningly believe this and are unaware of any benefits, when we know that there are several. Mentioning that smoking does have benefits to those people is usually met with shock and disbelief.

    It illustrates the difference between ‘propaganda’ and ‘education’; ‘Education’ involves examining all aspects, considering all the pros and cons, before conclusions are drawn. ‘Propaganda is used to push only one, usually false in one way or another, point of view. The unprecedented level of anti-smoker propaganda over many years has convinced many that they are almost experts when it comes to knowledge about smoking ‘harm’. No one wants to, or will even refuse to believe they have been conned, fooled, brainwashed or indoctrinated. This is one of the best ways, I believe, to invoke self awareness and force them to ask themselves the question; Why don’t I know about this?

    It also means that smoking is not just a simple, although valid, choice of freedom over nanny – eg. ‘if I want to kill myself, that’s my choice’, but also, ‘I have weighed up the risks v benefits v rewards and made my choice’.

  12. west2 says:

    If the SHS (ETS) issue can be shown to be an ‘untruth’ then lots of other things fall. The TCI is even using this with SHV (Second Hand Vape) becoming an issue.

    Maybe, in addition to the numbers, we need some humour. Numbers and evidence are just too dry and so much of a turn off. Humour on the other hand can make things seem rediculous. LI does this a bit with his modified compulsion blow out technique where he has the laugh while the anti believes it all. (Rather than blow out the Anti-smoking compulsion, LI reinforces it)

    There does seem to be a majority who know SHS isn’t as dangerous as made out. The problem is it isn’t PC to say so. We need to break that taboo and humour may be a way to do it.

    If a comedian came up with some humourous ‘catch phrases’ that show how silly it is to believe SHS is more deadly then sarin gas, this would enable the majority to have a good laugh at the very idea and all that goes with it.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      To most folks the simple claim about second hand smoke makes us all laugh anyway.

      TC is the Comedian Im just waiting for their next act!

  13. james higham says:

    This is always the dilemma – to know whom to hit first.

  14. magnetic01 says:

    Commenters yesterday did an excellent job of highlighting the major antismoking lies. I would just like to add a few more – “just nicotine addicts”, “passive/secondhand smoking”, “no slippery slope”, “the good antismokers battling the evil tobacco empire”.

    That’s a long list of inflammatory lies where each has played its deceptive part, in combination with others, in promoting the “smokefree” agenda. In agreement with other commenters, SHS “danger” would have to be the prime lie. Without this lie, the “movement” was already stalling in the late-70s/early-80s.

    However, I don’t think that pursuing this one lie or attempting to keep up with the myriad of agenda-driven “studies” is the way to go. Antismoking is well funded; there are just too many “studies” appearing on a weekly basis. Rather, I think the way the antismoking house-of-cards is set into pre-topple motion is to question the intent of the anti-smoking/tobacco crusade. We have historical information that the bulk of antismoking crusades over the last 400 years have been exterminatory and where the inflammatory claims that formed the basis for the extermination were wrong – they pre-date even the pretense of a scientific basis or the more recent concoction of SHS “danger”: They typically run on inflammatory propaganda. There seem to be those in the public that believe that antismoking is a recent development springing from all this new, “scientific” knowledge. This is simply not the case.

    We also know a lot more about the current crusade (Godber/WHO Blueprint). It resembles previous crusades in its exterminatory nature, particularly those of earlier last century in America and Germany. As a moralizing, social engineering crusade, it wasn’t popular right up to the early-1980s in the relatively-free countries (USA) where antismoking was being aggressively pushed. That’s when SHS “danger” was chased and propagated ad nauseam as a means to an end. From that point the “crusade” was advanced as ONLY an attempt to protect nonsmokers from SHS “danger”. We can now see that this was a masquerade to institute indoor bans. We now have bans that have nothing to do with protection from SHS “danger”. There are bans in large outdoor areas that include a ban on snus and chewing tobacco that don’t involve smoke at all. We are also seeing denial of housing, medical treatment, and employment to [unrepentant] smokers. This is a [State-sponsored] bigotry bandwagon that results from a moralizing, social-engineering, eradication crusade. There has been so much brainwashing over the last few decades that the fanatics/zealots/extremists are now even quite open about their social-engineering intent, e.g.,
    “Ailsa Rutter, the organisation’s [Fresh] chief executive, said: “Our vision is to make smoking history for our children in the next 20 years and we know there are millions out there that back this.” Campaigners say they are not pushing for a ban, but want to make cigarettes more expensive, less well advertised and too socially unacceptable for most people to continue smoking.”
    http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/article/38161

    The unacceptability of smoking comes from further brainwashing/denormalization and punitive measures directed at those who smoke, i.e., push the bigotry bandwagon further out of control.

    The discussion needs to be lifted to the “macro” or “bigger-picture” level. It needs to be pointed out that these sorts of social-engineering claims were unacceptable to most people 30 years ago. The fanatics themselves denied any such intent at the time; they denied any “slippery slope” beginning with smoking bans on short-haul flights in the USA; they denied that they were trying to force people to quit smoking. If people understand that the crusade has been social engineering from the outset and constantly lied about, they would be receptive to the idea that other things have been lied about throughout to advance the agenda to its current point which is obviously a social-engineering agenda. Specific examples (from the list) can then be given. It’s unfortunate that it’s had to get to this point of bans to demonstrate the clear social-engineering intent.

    People also need to be reminded that medicos and the medically-affiliated are not squeaky clean: They have a terrible/abhorrent, recent, social-engineering history, e.g., eugenics, that also involved anti-tobacco.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Mag I think a 2 pronged approach is needed. Destroying the myth and painting them and there movement as fanatics as you just did so brilliantly.

      • churchmouse says:

        Agreed — superbly expressed, mag, especially noting that the movement was on its knees in the late 1970s through to the early 1980s!

        It’s seemed to me for some time, as you state, that there is a totalitarian streak running through these people and that they are not squeaky-clean. Others will say, ‘Well, they seem nice enough, just on the wrong track’. No — totalitarianism always comes in as a saving force under pleasant guises.

  15. magnetic01 says:

    Oh, dear…… Divya seems to be a good example of the contemporary student walking the halls of academia. [God help us!]

    She parrots many of the lies indicated in the poll above. And she demonstrates the neurosis and bigotry that some, if not many, have deteriorated to. They act as though they are members of some [deranged, supremacist] cult where the primary belief is to avoid any contact whatsoever with tobacco smoke lest the most minute amount contaminate their being forever, barring them from some mystical state. And, so, they demand “protection” from the inconsiderate, selfish “contaminators”. Tragic!!
    http://www.thedp.com/article/2012/09/divya-ramesh-why-i-waited-with-baited-breath

    It does not dawn on them in the least, not the faintest hint…… not a moment’s thought, that they may be suffering mental dysfunction due to their immaturity, gullibility, and ease of manipulation.
    But, then, that’s the nature of the dysfunction and the antismoking fanatics are reinforcing that it’s “normal”.

  16. Margo says:

    These excellent posts – yes, a two-pronged attack and the possibilities of going for the ‘broader picture’. In that vein, I’m thinking that the most important victims of the bans (apart from individuals who have died because of it) are, in my opinion, 1) the Integrity of Science and 2) the Doctor-Patient Relationship.
    Health ‘science’ has sent the first out of the window entirely and the stupid sheeplike compliance of GPs is steadily eroding the second.
    Surely, as the fanatical madness continues to spread over more and more ‘bad for you’ areas, the general public is eventually going to wake up and shout – but when? When are they going to ask how a GP who blames everything on smoking and makes patients feel so guilty and belittled that they lie about their habits or stop going to see him – and sometimes die because of that – can possibly be worth such an enormous salary?
    Surely there’s mileage here somewhere?

    • Frank Davis says:

      I haven’t been to a doctor for about 6 years. I no longer have one. I used to only ever go in order to get a sleeping tablet prescription. When the smoking ban came in, I no longer wanted to see my doctor (not that she was particularly antismoking) if I didn’t have to. And I soon found that I could sleep just as well after a few shots of whisky. So I stopped using sleeping tablets. It’ll take an emergency now to get me to have another doctor. And I’d only want one who wasn’t an antismokers. But how do you find them?

      • I’ve had to change doctors due to a silly law that was brought in that if you are out of the country for 3 months then you are de-registered. FFS I was a marine engineer!
        When I saw the new Doctor and he started on the subject of smoking I told him to stop right there. He sheepishly replied that he was required to do so, To which I asked him in light of all the other scares being promulgated, such as salt, fizzy drinks, obesity, alcohol, climate change etc, that he might have to question me on. Would he have any time, in the allocated ten minute window, to ACTUALLY treat me?

        We are now on a good footing.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        My Doc smokes, so he never mentions smoking except for the odd on their nuts comment in the anti-smoking brigade.

      • beobrigitte says:

        It’ll take an emergency now to get me to have another doctor. And I’d only want one who wasn’t an anti-smokers. But how do you find them?

        This is tricky, I discovered lately that my – much admired – GP retired 12 years ago… Lucky for me there is no need to see a GP at the health centre I am registered with. Should I need to and be parked with an anti-smoking youngster, he will get a quick ear ache.
        I guess, for you and me it will be trial and error.

        And, a piece of unasked for advice: NEVER take sleeping tablets. I took one once and discovered that it wasn’t sleeping; it was zombiefying. Should I ever have troubles sleeping, I will continue reading my book(s).

  17. Messalina says:

    My first reaction was ‘All of the above!’. But I’ll have to go with the SHS lie, as that is the foundation upon which their whole web of lies and tyranny is built: all those smoking bans, taking away peoples’ individual freedom, ruining businesses and the economy and generally poisoning the whole world so it seems that there are very few places left in the world free from antismoking hysteria. (Middle Eastern countries where shisha pipe smoking is part of the culture – for God’s sake!) Before the SHS scare, when smoking just caused harm to smokers, people were more tolerant if you smoked, and just sort of joked about it, “well, ok, it’s your funeral!’
    I also have to agree with you on the lie that smoking causes lung cancer, especially after reading Junican’s posts on the Doll and Hill study. I’ve always thought the risks of active smoking were grossly exaggerated anyway – I used to work with older people, many of them well into their 80′s and 90′s still happily puffing away with no ill effects (apart from the usual aches and pains associated with old age).

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Sound slike the government needs to fire the lead anti-smoking minister!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Magnetico you will just love this TRIPE! EUGENICS BASED 101

        How genetics shape our addictions

        Genes predict the brain’s reaction to smoking
        Have you ever wondered why some people find it so much easier to stop smoking than others? New research shows that vulnerability to smoking addiction is shaped by our genes. A study from the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital – The Neuro, McGill University shows that people with genetically fast nicotine metabolism have a significantly greater brain response to smoking cues than those with slow nicotine metabolism. Previous research shows that greater reactivity to smoking cues predicts decreased success at smoking cessation and that environmental cues promote increased nicotine intake in animals and humans. This new finding that nicotine metabolism rates affect the brain’s response to smoking may lead the way for tailoring smoking cessation programs based on individual genetics.

        Smoking cues, such as the sight of cigarettes or smokers, affect smoking behavior and are linked to relapse and cigarette use. Nicotine metabolism, by a liver enzyme, also influences smoking behavior. Variations in the gene that codes for this enzyme determine slow or fast rates of metabolism and therefore, the level of nicotine in the blood that reaches the brain. In the study smokers were screened for their nicotine metabolism rates and their enzyme genotype. Participants were aged 18 – 35 and smoked 5-25 cigarettes daily for a minimum of 2 years. People with the slowest and fastest metabolism had their brain response to visual smoking cues measured using functional MRI. Fast metabolizers had significantly greater response to visual cigarette cues than slow metabolizers in brain areas linked to memory, motivation and reward, namely the amygdala, hippocampus, striatum, insula, and cingulate cortex.

        MORE HERE:
        http://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/how-genetics-shape-our-addictions-218156

  18. Dirk says:

    Well, there’s no doubt, that the SHS myth is the tobacco-control-industry’s “most succesful” lie. But I think, that TCI as a whole is a too easy target to bother with statistical evaluations about one single of their lies. It would cost an intererested and sufficiently educated reader several hours to evaluate the facts. I, myself, am not even familiar with the topic, because it does not interest me. Common sense tells me that the SHS-dangers are a lie. Smoke is a part of our culture as human beings. Without the fire, we would still be sitting on the trees, hiding away from predators. We’re just used to environmental smoke. It’s ubiquitous.

    And, if TCI has published (obviously fake) studies with SHS-related risk ratios of around 4 for lung cancer and other diseases, like Fredrik Eich mentioned above, it would take other studies to debunk the claim. Who would fund the studies? No matter who, TCI would just mention “Big Tobacco”.

    I think it’s easier to show that the present organisation of “Tobacco Control” in form of state-funded (more precisely tax-funded) fake charities, who create permanent jobs for anti-tobacco-”scientists”, is an error in itself. It leads to corruption and dishonesty by those who work within that structure.

    They are not even doing what they pretend to do. They do not really want to fight smoking effectively. Their jobs depend on the ongoing popularity of cigarettes. The tax-revenues of their employers depend on that as well. Yes, they publish bogus-propaganda that no-one believes, they propagate smoking cessation-methods that are ineffectice, they do everything to appear as if they were heavily engaged in their “noble cause”, but effectively they just perpetuate their fundings.

    Not to be misunderstood, I absolutely have no problem with the fact, that tobacco will probably be here to stay for eternity. It’s a medical and recreational plant that I intend to use for the rest of my life and I wish that future generations will have the same chance. The benefits of tobacco just outweigh the (in any case hopelessly exaggerated) risks for me. But, the average tax-payer will be disgusted by the waste of money that is “Tobacco Control” and by the stress and damage it causes to so many people and businesses. The uselessness of TC can easily be shown to everyone who spends five minutes to read an article that argues with simple, comprehensible words. No need to evaluate statistics and scientific texts.

    So I vote for the fact, that the TCI-people do not even do what they pretend to do and for the lie that “Tobacco Control is helping smokers to quit smoking.”

    We must be aware that “Tobacco Control” is an easy way for many people to make money, to earn a livelihood, whether they are (self-proclaimed) scientists or politicians, or governments relying on cigarette-tax-revenues and corresponding tax-increases. So, even if we get 90% of the people to know that Tobacco Control is bogus, the current anti-tobacco-crusade will probably go on for some years. But as long as we live in democratic countries, there is hope for change.

    Cheers!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Politically change happens almost overnite. The bans snuck thru in the midnite hour for the most part with little debate and if there was massive opposition a swas here in Tennessee they waited til the word was broadcast on tv news that the issue was dead and then in a special meeting at nite it was forced thru and signed by the govenor within 24 hours of passage. The law only allows for a passed bill to be challenged by the electorate for 30 days after passage. The democratc Govenor Bredeson knew this and quickly signed it into law the next morning!

  19. harleyrider1978 says:

    Key immune cell may play role in lung cancer susceptibility
    It is in the immune system of each of us after all!
    September 20, 2012
    By Caroline Arbanas

    Why do many heavy smokers evade lung cancer while others who have never lit up die of the disease? The question has vexed scientists for decades.

    Now, new research at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis suggests a key immune cell may play a role in lung cancer susceptibility. Working in mice, they found evidence that the genetic diversity in natural killer cells, which typically seek out and destroy tumor cells, contributes to whether or not the animals develop lung cancer.

    The research is published in September in Cancer Research.
    Overall, humans are genetically very similar but their immune systems are incredibly diverse,” explains senior author Alexander Krupnick, MD, a thoracic surgeon at the Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine. “Our findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that innate differences in immunity may determine not only a person’s susceptibility to colds but also to lung cancer.”
    http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/24264.aspx

    Based on the findings in mice, Krupnick says he and his colleagues now are studying whether humans have a similar genetic diversity in their natural killer cells. As part of a new clinical study, they’re analyzing the blood of heavy smokers with and without lung cancer and never-smokers with and without lung cancer to look for differences.

    “We want to know whether heavy smokers who don’t get lung cancer have natural killer cells that are somehow better at destroying newly developing lung cancer cells,” says Krupnick, associate professor of surgery. “And, by comparison, do patients who have never smoked but develop lung cancer have weak natural killer cells?”

    For the mouse study, the scientists evaluated three groups of mice with varying susceptibilities to lung tumors. After the mice were exposed to a carcinogen that causes lung cancer, one group readily developed the disease while another showed little evidence of the tumors. A third group experienced moderate tumor growth.

    When the researchers depleted natural killers cells from the mice using an antibody, those that had been resistant to lung cancer developed large, aggressive tumors.

    Further, in mice susceptible to lung cancer, the scientists showed that manipulating the immune system with a bone marrow transplant could significantly block the development of lung cancer. Their studies indicate that natural killer cells, not other types of immune cells like T cells or inflammatory cells, are responsible for this phenomenon.

    In other types of cancers, including those of the breast, colon and prostate, T cells are capable of destroying tumor cells. But in lung cancer, scientists suspect that T cells become inactivated, which may give natural killer cells a more prominent role.

    The researchers also traced the genetic diversity of the natural killer cells in the mice to a region of chromosome 6, which includes numerous genes that influence the effectiveness of these cells.

    Moving forward, Krupnick and his team want to learn whether natural killer cells influence lung cancer susceptibility in people. “We need to identify those patients who are resistant to lung cancer and ask, ‘What is unique about their natural killer cells – are they more potent or do they produce more of them than people with lung cancer?’ The answer will determine our next steps.”

  20. smokingscot says:

    Awesome recall Frank!

    They’re all lies. I don’t think they’re white lies and I don’t think there’s anything of “the greater good” at all. They rank up there with the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lies. Cold, calculated, deliberate, premeditated and brutally malevolent.

    Several have been proven to be lies to anyone with a modicum of common sense (70% want to quit & they’ll fill the pubs). However I’m not into going through the learning curve with your average Joe; way too much detail needed on my part. Hence the only one I can answer with absolute conviction and can back that up is the 3rd from last (anyone who disagrees with TC).

    Indeed, to my unending shame, I don’t even own shares in a tobacco company

  21. smokingscot says:

    As you don’t have a television, perhaps you missed this.

    Extracting the Michael out of Clegg

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19660345

    • beobrigitte says:

      He told the BBC’s Daily Politics that it “took guts” for Mr Clegg to make such a public apology and that political parties did not get anywhere without “taking chances”.

      So there is still hope for Mr. Clegg apologizing to Britain’s smoking population for comparing smoking to the death penalty and with that DENYING the PROMISED review of the smoking ban which has killed traditional English pubs?

      I am waiting.

  22. harleyrider1978 says:

    Heres a new one that makes every claim about shs is a killer all in one neat package:

    Secondhand Smoke Takes Big Illness, Expense Toll Study found blacks most affected, including for death among infants exposed in womb

    THURSDAY, Sept. 20 (HealthDay News) — Secondhand smoke has a substantial health and economic impact, especially among black Americans, a new study shows.

    Researchers analyzed data from more than 12,000 adults to assess the number of deaths, the years of potential life lost and the value of lost productivity caused by secondhand smoke in 2006.

    That year, more than 41,000 American adults and nearly 900 infants died of secondhand smoke-related diseases, according to a journal news release.

    The study found that blacks had significantly higher levels of exposure to secondhand smoke than whites. The highest exposure was among black men aged 45 to 64 (nearly 64 percent), followed by black men aged 20 to 44 (nearly 63 percent).

    Black women aged 20 to 44 had a higher exposure rate (nearly 63 percent) than any other women.

    In 2006, black infants accounted for 24 percent to 36 percent of deaths caused by mothers smoking during pregnancy, even though they accounted for only 13 percent of the infant population.

    The toll from just two adult and four infant conditions linked to secondhand smoke in 2006 was 42,000 deaths, 600,000 years of potential life lost and $6.6 billon in lost productivity. Blacks and Hispanics had the highest value of lost productivity per death.

    “With the high rates of smoking prevalence and the resulting high rates of [secondhand smoke] exposure in the United States and in many parts of the world, interventions need to be designed that target particularly vulnerable groups and that reduce the health and economic burden of smoking on smokers and nonsmokers alike,” wrote Wendy Max, of the Institute for Health & Aging in San Francisco, and colleagues.

    The study was published online Sept. 20 in the American Journal of Public Health.

    Read More http://www.ivillage.com/secondhand-smoke-takes-big-illness-expense-toll/4-a-488620#ixzz273Szvh27
    Sign up for iVillage Special Offers

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Found it:

      Objectives. We estimated the number of deaths attributable to secondhand smoke (SHS), years of potential life lost (YPLL), and value of lost productivity for different US racial/ethnic groups in 2006.

      Methods. We determined the number of SHS–related deaths among nonsmokers from 2 adult and 4 infant conditions using an epidemiological approach. We estimated adult SHS exposure using detectable serum cotinine. For each death, we determined the YPLL and the value of lost productivity.

      Results. SHS exposure resulted in more than 42 000 deaths: more than 41 000 adults and nearly 900 infants. Blacks accounted for 13% of all deaths but 24% to 36% of infant deaths. SHS–attributable deaths resulted in a loss of nearly 600 000 YPLL and $6.6 billion of lost productivity, or $158 000 per death. The value of lost productivity per death was highest among Blacks ($238 000) and Hispanics ($193 000).

      Conclusions. The economic toll of SHS exposure is substantial, with communities of color having the greatest losses. Interventions need to be designed to reduce the health and economic burden of smoking on smokers and nonsmokers alike and on particularly vulnerable groups. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print September 20, 2012: e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300805)

      http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300805

      • beobrigitte says:

        Methods. We determined the number of SHS–related deaths among nonsmokers from 2 adult and 4 infant conditions using an epidemiological approach.

        Harley, I have a minor problem with that.

        WHAT exactly are these 2 adult and 4 infant conditions?

        First, we need to establish what deaths ONLY smoking/”passive” smoking can be attributed to.
        This would be common sense, wouldn’t it?

  23. Pingback: Edifice of Lies | Frank Davis

  24. Jay says:

    If we’re nailing lies in order to expose TC for the liars they are my strategem would be to go for the easiest lie to expose on the grounds that it raises doubts about their truthfulness in general.

    I’d have thought that the mediporn on packs would be easiest – the tobacco companies must know their provenance.

  25. beobrigitte says:

    Frank!!!!! Limiting the answer to only one is just plain MEAN!!! In the end I tossed between “Smoking kills” and “Tobacco is also the only product that will kill you if used as directed.”

    I ended up choosing the latter.
    There are 2 lies in it: Tobacco is also the only product that will kill you

    What EXACTLY is the ONLY cause of death that tobacco causes?

    and
    if used as directed

    What directions? I am not aware of any.

    • Messalina says:

      Operating Instructions – Use as directed:
      1. Open packet
      2. Remove cigarette from packet
      3. Place cigarette in mouth
      4. Ignite cigarette using flammable device such as lighter or match
      5. Inhale
      6. Continue inhaling until cigarette burns to the end
      7. Enjoy!

      • beobrigitte says:

        Ah, that’s where I went wrong. I just enjoyed. And still do. A lot!!!! Ever since the smoking ban came in, smoking has become IMPORTANT. Before that I did not have to make the point that I am a smoker.

        I’m glad there are no instructions provided on the packets!

    • Frank Davis says:

      What directions?

      Well, exactly.

  26. sadbutmadlad says:

    I’m in the minority as I went with the gory pictures option. Why? Because SHS is so well known an excuse and I actually don’t think it’s accepted so broadly as the main reason to stop smoking. It’s like global warming where more and more are starting to question it because the zealous are too enthusiastic, more than they need to be if they were just basing it in facts, truth and science. It it’s pushed as a means to denormalise smokers, but not as reason to stop smoking. The only aspect of SHS smokers acknowledge is the smell and consideration of others – they’re just being polite.

    No the reason why the gory pictures need to be shown to be false is because so much depends on it. It’s like taking one brick out of a wall and allowing people to see beyond and the truth, not the veneer. Once people realise that the prohibititionists have to resort to trickery and fakery on something as basic as a pictures to get their point across then everything else they do also becomes questionable.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s