The Nazi Antismoking Legacy 1

I’ve been writing this blog for 2 years now, and during that time I’ve often thought that I’d like to devote a few essays to the Nazi link with antismoking. But I never got round to it. Perhaps because it’s a difficult subject. Antismoking probably isn’t something that comes to mind when most people think of Nazism. And five or so years ago, it wasn’t something that I associated with Nazism either. But since that time, I’ve read enough about it to realise that it was far more significant than I had hitherto realised.

Perhaps the seminal book about it all is Robert Proctor’s 1999 book The Nazi War on Cancer, which I first read about in the 2000 review by Roger Cooter in the British Medical Journal*, and which I reproduce below:

Is “mad and bad” what springs to mind when you think of Nazi medical science? Is the late 20th century United States where you locate the groundswell of support for natural foods, vocal concerns over ill health and the environment, and campaigns against passive smoking? And is it the famous 1950 study of Doll and Hill that you associate with establishing the link between smoking and cancer? If so, this book is essential reading, but prepare to be shocked.

The medical fraternity of the notorious Third Reich emerge here in unconventional guise, not only as the champions of wholegrain bread, soya beans (popularly denominated “Nazi beans”), and extensive medico-botanical gardens at Dachau and Auschwitz, but also as the guys who launched a powerful antismoking campaign, waged war on cancer (in pursuit of its “final solution”), identified many workplace causes of cancer, and imposed bans on asbestos and carcinogenic pesticides. Nazi researchers were the first to prove conclusively that smoking was the major cause of lung cancer. Indeed, as early as 1936 — the year that the young Richard Doll was attending the lectures in Frankfurt of the SS radiologist Professor Hans Holfelder — they had gathered sufficient statistical evidence to prove the cancerous hazards of what they labelled “passive smoking” (passivraucher). Furthermore, suggests Proctor, it is probably as a result of the preventive measures that the Nazi regime undertook with regard to smoking — health education and the banning of “lung masturbation” in trams, trains, and public buildings — that significantly lower rates of smoking related mortality from cancer occurred among German women after the war compared with US women.

The author’s aim is not to turn some of humanity’s greatest sinners into saints. Nor is it to entertain banalities about good coming out of evil. Even less is Proctor interested in resurrecting Hitler’s denunciation of tobacco as “one of man’s most dangerous poisons” in order to castigate as crypto-fascist those seeking to ghettoise or prohibit smoking today. (Hitler took puritanical, not to say ideological, satisfaction from the fact that neither he nor Mussolini, or Franco, were victims of the weed, whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were.) Proctor’s purpose, rather, is to reveal that the boundaries between good and bad science and moral and immoral politics are far more permeable and historically complex and contingent than is usually admitted. One cannot, he shows, simply translate between Nazi science and Nazi ideology and policy. The point is powerfully made in the perception of life preserving cancer research in the same context as hideous experiments on humans — not to mention Nazi praise for wheatgerm in the same breath as genocide.

And it’s a point worth making, for the fiction that bad science only comes from bad politics — a fiction routinely sustained by holding up the caricature of the mad Nazi doctors — has long served to cloak a good deal of bad science and medicine undertaken in otherwise benign regimes. The Nazi War on Cancer is thus a powerfully ironic history of political correction. It is also a thoroughly engaging, highly professional, myth destroying work of scholarship.

Not long after I’d read this, I discovered to my surprise that Robert Proctor was himself an antismoking zealot. And I found myself wondering: Why on earth would an antismoker want to disinter this largely forgotten piece of Nazi history? Why draw attention to it at all? Most people don’t associate smoking bans and “passive smoking” and smoking epidemiology with the Nazi era, so why remind them? I couldn’t help but think that, with antismoking friends like Robert Proctor, antismokers didn’t need enemies.

But I suspect that Proctor realised that, sooner or later, somebody was going to dig up this particular rotting corpse, and use it against the antismoking movement, and that therefore the best thing to do was to pre-empt this possibility, by writing the history himself, and putting his own gloss on that history.

And what Proctor wishes to say is that, while the Nazis were capable of the most egregious pseudo-science, they were also capable of very good science as well. And the example that Proctor has in mind is the Nazi V2 rocket, which was years ahead of anything the Allies had. And once he has established that the Nazis were capable of good science as well as bad science, he then says that Nazi anti-smoking science is another example of good Nazi science, which was also years ahead of its time. Writing in Tobacco Control in 2008, Proctor says:

Schneider and Glantz in this issue (see page 291) chronicle the industry’s longstanding efforts to characterise tobacco control as ‘‘Nazi’’ or ‘‘fascist’’. The industry’s rant has a certain superficial plausibility: the Nazis had one of the world’s strongest anti-cancer campaigns, one central feature of which was to curtail tobacco use. Hitler himself stopped smoking in 1919, throwing his cigarettes into the Danube in an act of defiance he later credited for helping the triumph of Nazism. The three main fascist leaders of Europe (Hitler, Franco and Mussolini) all eschewed tobacco, whereas Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill all were avid smokers.

The tobacco industry finds such facts useful, which is why the front group FOREST (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco) once offered my 1988 book, Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis, for sale as ‘‘vital’’ for understanding ‘‘the statist and paternalist world view of the Nazis’’ and ‘‘the health fascism of contemporary anti-smoking and ‘health’ lobbies’’.

Schneider and Glantz rightly conclude that the industry’s interest in such matters has nothing to do with German history, nor with the realities of fascism, but rather with an opportunistic effort to do whatever it can to keep selling cigarettes.

The industry’s reductio ad Hitlerum is superficial, and ahistorical. The Nazis excelled at rocketry—does this mean that the Apollo mission was ballistic fascism? Many Nazis urged fitness and health through exercise: is jogging therefore athletic fascism? The fact that healthful or progressive policies were occasionally endorsed by the Nazis does not mean they are inherently fascist or oppressive.

The V2 rocket appears again in another piece by Proctor:

The problem with the “science vs. fascism” thesis is that it fails to take into account the eagerness with which many scientists and physicians embraced the Reich, and the many scientific disciplines which actually flourished under the Nazis. Anyone who has ever examined a V-2 engine will have few doubts about this, and there are numerous other examples.

So there you have it. Not all Nazi science was twisted and sick. The V2 rocket programme is one example of ‘good’ Nazi science. And Nazi antismoking research was another. And if you say otherwise, you’re working for the Tobacco Industry.

I’m not sure that this defence stacks up. As I wrote in an essay about the German V2 rocket some time ago, it was a programme that moved forward largely despite the Nazi regime, rather than because of it. Furthermore, rocket science wasn’t any part of the Nazi eugenic ideology, in the way that health and fitness and wholegrain bread and antismoking and racial “science” were part.  For as Proctor himself wrote in The Nazi War on Cancer:

“The Nazi campaign against tobacco and the ‘whole grain bread operation’ are, in some sense, as fascist as the yellow stars and the death camps,”

Over the next few days, I’ll dig up a few of my sources on the Nazi era, and Nazi antismoking research, and Nazi smoking bans, in order to paint a clearer picture of that lost history. Perhaps one or two of my readers may have a few of their own sources that they can bring to the discussion, and thereby give it a fairly thorough airing.

* When I first read the review in the BMJ some 5 years ago, I didn’t need to be a subscriber. When that changed, I found it quite easy to become a subscriber, without paying any subscription fee.

About the archivist

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

51 Responses to The Nazi Antismoking Legacy 1

  1. Hitler was a Leftist
    Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

    http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

    In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a “national socialist duty” (Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit, though this didn’t stop them lighting up in the Berlin bunker once they heard the Fuhrer had committed suicide). Armed with such senior sanction — loyally, Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler banned SS men from smoking, though not shooting, on duty, and Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobbels was obliged to hide his ciggie whenever he was filmed — anti-tobacco activists succeeded in banning smoking from government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces. Tobacco taxes were raised, unsupervised cigarette vending machines were banned, and there were calls for a ban on smoking while driving.

    Thanks to the Ministry of Science and Education, and the Reich Health Office, posters were produced depicting smoking as the typically despicable habit of Jews, jazz musicians, Gypsies, Indians, homosexuals, blacks, communists, capitalists, cripples, intellectuals and harlots. Zealous lobbyists descended into the schools, terrifying children with tales of impotence and racial impurity.

    One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

    If some of these measures appear familiar today, then consider the rules laid down in 1941 regarding tobacco advertising. “Images that create the impression that smoking is a sign of masculinity are barred, as are images depicting men engaged in activities attractive to youthful males (athletes or pilots, for example),” and “may not be directed at sportsmen or automobile drivers,” while “advocates of tobacco abstinence or temperance must not be mocked.” Advertisements were banned from films, billboards, posters and “the text sections of journals and newspapers.” Nevertheless, even the Nazis couldn’t equal the recent ban on smoking on death row, meaning prisoners about to undergo massive electric shocks are forbidden from indulging in “one last drag” — talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

    This great crusade, propagated through a remarkable network of lectures, re-education programs and congresses, was backed up by the medical and health establishment for the sake of “science.” Or at least a certain type of junk science, one in which objective research and the scientific method was subordinated to, and bastardized for the sake of, a greater political program. Thus, it was commonly touted by scientists and racial hygienists that smoking caused “spontaneous abortions”: a clearly demonstrable fallacy, but one requiring official promotion in order to ensure a high birth rate for Aryan women. (Source: Anti-tobacco Gestapo: past and present)

    • alanx says:

      Possibly Proctor’s book contains an analysis of the term Fascism, in which case I am perhaps wrong in finding his use of the word in the above excerpts ungroovy.

      For the life of me I can’t see Nazism as Fascism, – though certainly the Nazis took things unto themselves of a Fascist nature, but they also mined other things that were lying about like Eugenics (Dresden Hygeia Museum up and running in the 20’s illustrates this). Proctor writes as if Nazism and Fascism are interchangeable terms, and I’m pretty sure they are not.

      Proctor writes: ” . . . as fascist as the yellow stars and death camps”. If he means here the specially designed killing centres for which the Nazis are famous, then I would take very serious issue with him saying that these particular death camps were Fascist rather than Nazi in nature. Perhaps a proper historian can correct me on this, but Mussolini for instance does not have a name for promoting industrialised death camps, nor do his followers, and I take Mussolini as the most typical Fascist leader I can think of.

      Proctor asks the question: ” . . . is jogging therefore athletic fascism”, and well, I simply have to light heartedly reply that in my own terms jogging most certainly is athletic fascism, and in a form that combines exhibitionism, joint damage and inhaling plenty of exhaust fumes to boot.

      There’s an essay somewhere on the internet by a Professor Caplan, who claims that some of the Anarcho Statist forces in The Spanish Civil War were ferociously anti smoking pub shutters in the areas that they controlled – so if Caplan is correct you cannot lay the blame for mid 20th century anti smokerism completely on the German front.

      However, the parallels between the Third Reich’s anti smokerism and the present time are startling, as pointed out by a previous poster, and should be told of again, and again and again. And again, and on and on like a beating drum.

      • alanx says:

        Proctor claims that Franco was a Fascist. So Franco will have had much in common with Himmler then. I suggest that Proctor is a clumsy propagandist.

      • Frank Davis says:

        For the life of me I can’t see Nazism as Fascism

        I agree they’re not the same thing. But the meaning of both these words would seem to have largely eroded away.

        Certainly there was no element of racial ‘science’ in Mussolini’s fascism. Nor have I detected much in the way of ‘healthism’ either. The fasces – a bundle of sticks and axes – was a symbol of Roman state power that was carried by some of its officials, and carried with it an implied threat of force. By reviving this symbol, Mussolini was invoking (and also perhaps distorting) Italian history.

        I don’t know that much about Franco, but he doesn’t seem to have been much of an ideologue in the way that Mussolini and Hitler were. Franco simply seems to have been a Spanish ultraconservative who wished to restore the traditional Spanish state. And this seems to have been more or less exactly what he did.

    • Tommy says:

      In regards to the final comment, smoking does have the risk of spontaneous abortion. Although some studies have not found the link, others have found 11% of spontaneous abortions to be linked to smoking. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1694397/

  2. Magnetic says:

    Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit…..

    $500 FOR QUITTING CIGARS.; E.H. Harriman Gives It to His Chauffeur on a Pledge.
    May 06, 1906,
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=980CE2D8113EE733A25755C0A9639C946797D6CF&scp=167&sq=smoking&st=p

    [Harriman was a major supporter/funder of American (and German) eugenics]

    Proctor has unfortunately dominated proceedings with his view of Nazi antismoking. Proctor’s aim, given that he too is an antismoker, is to distance Nazi antismoking from other more obviously nasty aspects of Nazism, that it was one of the “good” aspects of Nazism. This intentionally gives contemporary antismokers ammunition to reduce those connecting contemporary antismoking with Nazi statism as fools or shills for the “evil” tobacco industry. Yet Proctor’s is a very contorted depiction, devoid of proper historical context.

    Proctor is either a very poor historian or a pathological liar. Although he must surely be aware of it, Proctor is very careful never to refer to American eugenics which was a driving force for Nazi eugenics. Keeping antismoking confined to Nazism completely blurs the eugenics continuity from early-1900s USA to the present.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I agree that the wider eugenic context needs to be explained, and particularly the US aspect. Nazism is often presented as something that emerged in Germany alone, and nowhere else. And this isn’t true.

      It might also be worth pointing out that there was a considerable Nazi ‘environmental’ movement, which is also very much connected to American environmentalism.

  3. Magnetic says:

    2.
    Antismoking didn’t magically appear in Nazi Germany. Antismoking (and anti-alcohol) were rife in turn-of-the-last-century USA. Below are just some headlines appearing in the New York Times in the early 1900s.

    “NO SMOKING” MAKES TROUBLE FOR TRAINMEN; Brooklyn Elevated Line Guards Weary Enforcing Orders. Women Protested, Patrons Disgusted, Conductors Explained, but the Rule Was Generally Respected.
    1900

    JAIL FOR SMOKING MOTHER.; Mrs. Lasher Used Cigarettes in Presence of Her Children.
    1904

    Bitten by Snake While Pitching Hay.; Died from Cigarette Smoking.
    1903

    GARRABRANT MURDER TRIAL.; The Defense Seeks to Prove the Boy a Degenerate, Insane from Cigarette Smoking.
    1905

    SMOKING KILLS HIM.; W.H. Chase of Bayonne Dies of the Excessive Use of Cigarettes.
    1901

    Girls’ Anti-Smoking Pledge.
    1906

    NO SMOKING ON ELLIS ISLAND.; Neither Employes Nor Immigrants May Now Indulge.
    1902

    Insane from Smoking Cigarettes.
    1900

    DEGENERACY IN SMOKING.; Cigars Bad and the Taste of the Smokers Worse, to Say Nothing of Tariff.
    1904

    RUNAWAY BOY FOUND.; Came to New York After Scolding for Cigarette Smoking.
    1900

    “BURGLAR” A PROFESSOR.; Police Blunder in Arresting Teacher Who Was Smoking on the Roof.
    1906

    SMOKING ON THE PLATFORM; No Crime — Merely a Cause for Ejection from the Elevated.
    1905

    MAY START TOBACCO CRUSADE.; W.C.T.U. Considers an Anti-Smoking Amendment to the Liquor Pledge.
    1902

    FIRST CIGAR KILLED HIM.; Philadelphia Boy Dead After Initial Attempt at Smoking.
    1904

    TALK OF A PRETTY BROADWAY; West End Association Also Discusses Smoking In Cars.
    1906

    SWORE OFF ON CIGARETTES.; Court Frees Offender on His Taking Oath to Quit Smoking.
    1906

    MAY WOMAN SMOKE IN AUTO?; Not in Fifth Avenue, Says Bicycle Policeman — Trouble Follows.
    1904

    Too Much Room Given to Smokers.
    1905

    MIDSHIPMEN MUSTN’T SMOKE.; Second Offense at Annapolis Will Lead to Dismissal.
    1905

    FRESHMEN AND CIGARETTES.
    1909

    CARRIE NATION HISSED.; She Called President Roosevelt a “Cigarette Fiend” — Rockaway Beach Sunday Theatre Crowd Resented It.
    1903

    WOMEN CIGARETTE SMOKERS.; Story from Chicago that 100,000 Women in New York Are Habitual Users of Tobacco.
    1901

    SHE WANTS DIVORCE BECAUSE OF HIS PIPE; Alleges That It Always Gives Her a Bad Headache, “DID MOTHER, TOO,” SHE SAYS Cigar Once Broke Off an Eragement, and Tobacco Now Threatens Marriage Bonds,
    1904

    IDIOSYNCRASIES OF SMOKERS.
    1901

    TOBACCO AS A MORAL ISSUE.
    1900

  4. Magnetic says:

    There were concurrent anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol “crusades” in early-1900s USA. These crusades led to a temporary ban on the sale of tobacco in some states and smoking restrictions in most states, and eventually Prohibition immediately following WWI.
    http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1981/2/1981_2_94_print.shtml

    Pushed by the Eugenics and Temperance Movements, antismoking (and anti-alcohol) was viewed as in the interests of a “healthier” society. Rather, this fake “purity” promoted irrational fear, hatred, and social division: It brought out the worst in the human disposition. Baseless, inflammatory claims were made as a matter of course by so-called “authorities” and “experts”.

    What is not noted in Dillow (1981) is that eugenics was rife at the turn of the last century. Eugenics views humans as no more than a “herd” that can be “engineered” along the biological dimension for “maximal [physical] health.” Health is reduced to an entirely biological phenomenon (physicalism, materialism). In addition to its racial/heredity/breeding dimension, eugenics also has a behavioral dimension. Along this dimension, eugenics is anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol (negative eugenics) and aggressively pushes approved diet and physical exercise (positive eugenics). In this context, tobacco and alcohol are viewed as body toxins that should be avoided/eradicated. They are considered to detrimentally affect human [body] performance and reproduction.

    Consider the example of Indiana. It introduced a ban on the sale of tobacco in 1905, followed by a sterilization law in 1907. By the time of Prohibition (1920), 22 states already had sterilization laws and another 11 states would introduce such laws in the decade following Prohibition. Most anti-tobacco laws occurred before Prohibition and mostly in states that had/would have sterilization laws. There was a renewed, unsuccessful attempt following Prohibition to introduce a tobacco version of Prohibition. It should be clear that eugenics was the driving force behind anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, and sterilization laws early last century. It is the eugenics elite, funded by the mega-wealthy (e.g., Rockefeller, Ford, Harriman, Carnegie, Kellogg), and embraced by the “educated”, that had the ear of the legislature. The Temperance movement, with so-called “religious” leanings, had lobbied for tobacco and alcohol bans for decades since the mid-1800s. It had very, very limited success. Yet, as soon as the eugenicists came on the scene in the late-1800s, things started happening legislatively. The eugenics and temperance movements share the anti-tobacco/alcohol view. However, it was the eugenics movement that harnessed the temperance movement for its own agenda. It would be eugenics that would dominate proceedings in the early-1900s right up to WWII in the USA. There were those in the “religious”, Temperance movement that even fully bought into eugenics.

    Eugenics made numerous baseless, inflammatory claims. These claims were simply accepted at face value given that eugenics was viewed as “scholarly” and “scientific”, and it promised a “healthier” society, rid of crime, poverty, and disease. And it produced a bandwagon effect, with state by state progressively buying into the derangement.

    • Magnetic says:

      California was the leader in the American eugenics insanity. It performed more sterilizations – by far – than any other state. It performed over 20,000 sterilizations. The next highest state was North Carolina with 7,600. There was also an intimate connection between American – particularly Californian – and German eugenicists. The latter (and Hitler) were students of American eugenics that later went on to lead the Nazi assault.

      Anti-tobacco/alcohol reared their heads in pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany, again as a point of the eugenics framework.
      http://www.bmj.com/archive/7070nd2.htm

      It is important to note that the Nazis didn’t invent eugenics. It was popularized in America. German eugenicists (and Hitler) were students of American eugenics. There was a close relationship between American and German eugenicists and between American and German industrialists who were supporters/funders of eugenics. Antismoking (and anti-alcohol) didn’t suddenly appear in German society with Nazism. Eugenics ideas were gaining increasing influence in German society through the 1920s.

      For example, in a translation of his memoirs of living as a Jew in Berlin, Germany, between 1914 and 1933, Haffner (2002) notes:
      ……openly promoted and praised, was the sports craze which took possession of the youth of Germany.

      In the years 1924, 1925 and 1926, Germany suddenly blossomed into a great sporting nation……………in those years the membership of sports clubs and the number of spectators at sports meetings multiplied ten-fold at a stroke. Boxers and sprinters became national heroes, and the twenty-year-olds had their heads full of athletics results….. (p.58).

      I missed no sports meeting. I trained three times a week, stopped smoking and performed exercises before going to bed. (p.59)

      ….Not only were we once again able to indulge our old vice, the narcotic of the cold, unreal numbers game. This time we did it with the full attention and the unanimous approval of our mentors.

      …..The only man who seemed to realise that the forces he had released were taking a false and dangerous path was Stresemann [then Chancelor] himself. He occasionally made hostile references to the ‘new aristocracy of the biceps’, which added to his unpopularity (p.61)

      There is very good reason to believe that this “[physical] healthy living” sports craze was eugenics promoted. Haffner points out that the physicalist/healthist craze subsided within a few years. However, shortly thereafter physicalism/”applied biology” would become a foundational aspect of the Nazi regime, and the German populace had already been primed to it.

    • Magnetic says:

      There is further evidence that eugenics was gaining further traction in Germany through the 1920s:
      Eugenics Bureau to Advise Berlin Couples on Marriage
      By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
      May 29, 1926, Saturday
      BERLIN, May 28. — The first municipal bureau for giving advice on
      matrimonial eugenics will be opened in Berlin on June 1.
      http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40611F639551B7A93CBAB178ED85F428285F9&scp=20&sq=eugenics&st=p

      Matrimonial Eugenics Bureau Declared a Success in Berlin
      Copyright, 1927, by The New York Times Co. By Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
      May 31, 1927, Tuesday
      http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20715F63D581B728DDDA80B94DD405B878EF1D3&scp=66&sq=eugenics&st=p

      Although there were eugenics societies in a variety of countries, post-WWII, the greatest concentration of eugenicists was in the USA, and within the USA, in California. The eugenics mentality was never resolved in the USA. Eugenicists didn’t just disappear or change their mentality. They believed that Hitler had gone “too far” but that the fundamentals of eugenics were sound. They were more than happy for the public to believe that eugenics was a Nazi phenomenon that disappeared with the defeat of Nazism and that anti-tobacco/alcohol in the USA had been solely produced by the Temperance Movement. Given the horrors associated with the term “eugenics” following Nazism, they simply stopped using the “E”[ugenics] word. Further, given their thoroughly flawed “heredity trees”, they abandoned the heredity/racial/breeding dimension and focused entirely on the behavioral dimension. [Genetics/genetic engineering took over study from “heredity trees”. This study, in its infancy immediately post-WWII, has produced the Human Genome Project which is housed in the very same building complex in Cold Spring Harbor, NY, as the original Eugenics Record Office]

      The contemporary antismoking “crusade” has been produced by the same eugenics personnel – physicians, biologists, zoologists, pharmacologists, statisticians, behaviorists – continuing the eugenics obsession with anti-tobacco. Health reduced to only biology is the eugenics framework and the aggressive peddling of the definition with a view to societal change (social engineering) is very much the fascism/statism of the eugenics mentality. It is the eugenics mentality that dominates health bureaucracies that has made antismoking a societal ideal.

    • Magnetic says:

      The current antismoking crusade was put into motion in the mid-1970s under the auspices of the UN agency, the World Health Organization (see Godber/WHO Blueprint http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ). It should be noted that the first director of the WHO, defining its charter, was Brock Chisholm, a eugenicist. And since that time it is California that has been the global leader in antismoking, continuing its strong eugenics tradition. Rather than ban the sale of tobacco, the goal this time has been to ban smoking in essentially all the places where people would typically smoke. Indoor and outdoor bans were planned years before even the first study on secondhand smoke. George Godber (now deceased), a WHO operative, would have been happy if people were only permitted to smoke in their homes. So apartment bans which are now also being sought would have probably shocked even Godber. However, as far as fanaticism is concerned, the extent of delusional action can be difficult to predict.

      In pushing their deranged world view, contemporary eugenicists are very much in line with their predecessors. They use lies, exaggeration, manipulation, pitting groups against other groups to achieve their goals, e.g., propaganda/denormalization. It is a cultic framework where participants convince themselves that much is permitted in the interests of a eugenics-defined “good cause”. Because nothing other than biology registers on their perverse definition of “health”, they do not recognize (or may even delight in) their destructive influence on psychological, social, moral, and ideo-political health. And like early last century, there are many – essentially the “educated”/wealthy classes – that have jumped on the bandwagon, giving it considerable momentum. There are now groups around America and the world stumbling over each other to be the first to institute the most draconian, widespread smoking bans for a eugenics-defined “healthier” society. California is still the leader in this regard.

      As history shows, eugenics is a dangerous philosophy. It promoted irrational belief, fear, intolerance, bigotry, racism, cruelty, brutality, and criminality. In the current antismoking bandwagon – just a taste of one dimension of eugenics – we see the same intolerance, irrational fear, and bigotry made to appear as “progressive”.

  5. Magnetic says:

    Some examples that there is, in addition to the racial dimension, a behavioral (e.g., anti-tobacco/alcohol) dimension to eugenics.

    January 2-6, 1928, Battle Creek, Michigan. Available through Vassar University)

    The purpose of the Race Betterment Foundation, founded by Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, who also ran the Battle Creek Sanitarium, as stated in the Proceedings of the Third Race Betterment Conference, are as follows: “To bring together a group of leading scientists, educators and others for the purpose of discussing ways and means of applying science to human living in the same thoroughgoing way in which it is applied to industry—in the promotion of longer life, greater efficacy and well-being and of race improvement” (Kellogg, p. ii). The President of this particular conference was C.C. Little, D.Sc., the President of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. In a speech given at this conference, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg praised the advantages of “being a member of a good family” (Kellogg, p. 118). Kellogg says to maintain that “prize-winner” status, individuals should be examined by a family physician every 6 months, and should stay away from tobacco, alcohol, coffee and tea (Kellogg, p. 119).
    http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/MI/MI.html

    1916
    Father of Eugenics, Dr. D.A. Gorton, dies
    Parent of twins born in 81st year expires at 83 in his Brooklyn home.

    Dr. Gorton believed in the theory of the German scientist, Dr. Eufurt, that the determination of the sex of children was possible as well as practical, and before the twins were born he stated that he was to become the father of a son. His rules for bearing and rearing eugenic children have received wide circulation and have been adopted all over the country. The chief of these is that neither the father nor mother should use tobacco, liquor, or drugs.
    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70A15F83B5B17738DDDAA0A94DA405B868DF1D3

    A 1919 eugenics text:
    SEARCHLIGHTS ON HEALTH
    THE SCIENCE OF EUGENICS

    A Guide to Purity and Physical Manhood
    Advice to Maiden, Wife and Mother
    Love, Courtship, and Marriage

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13444/13444-h/13444-h.htm

    [Note the chapters on tobacco and alcohol (and the “detrimental consequences” of masturbation). Although it is touted as a science text, there is little science contained therein. There is, however, much opinion by so-called “well-known authorities” (e.g., physicians)]

  6. Magnetic says:

    Employment discrimination against smokers is not new. It was a feature of the eugenics-driven antismoking crusade of early-1900s USA. There was a trend in the antismoking fervor to not employ smokers. Henry Ford was one of those.
    http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1981/2/1981_2_94_print.shtml
    [Note that Dillow makes no reference to eugenics, let alone the eugenics domination of the time, i.e., poor research]

    Consider Henry Ford’s 1914 Antismoking booklet “The Case Against the Little White
    Slaver” in which he recommends not employing cigarette smokers:
    http://www.archive.org/stream/caseagainstlitt00fordgoog/caseagainstlitt00fordgoog_djvu.txt

    Around this time, sterilization laws and a bans/restrictions on the sale of tobacco were passed in quite a number of American states.

    Another indication of Ford’s rabid antismoking (cigarette) mentality:
    “Ashtrays were offered at first only in luxury vehicles, but were standard in most cars by the 1920’s, David Lewis, a professor of business history at the University of Michigan, said. One holdout was Henry Ford, an anti-smoker who published a pamphlet in 1914 called “The Case Against the Little White Slaver.”
    Mr. Ford did not install ashtrays in his Model T. But he caved in by the 1930’s, though he advertised his lighters as “cigar lighters.” Cigars were permissible because Mr. Ford’s hero, Thomas Edison, smoked them.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/05/business/for-car-buyers-smoking-is-no-longer-standard.html

    Ford, and others of the mega-wealthy elite (e.g., Rockefeller, Carnegie), was also a supporter/funder of USA and Nazi eugenics. He is also known for penning the collection of anti-Semitic literature titled “The International Jew”:
    http://www.archive.org/stream/TheInternationalJew/InternationalJew_djvu.txt

    Ford also had a subsidiary in Nazi Germany manufacturing/supplying trucks to the Nazis:
    INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS; Suit Charges Ford Profited By Nazi-Era Forced Labor
    http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/05/business/international-business-suit-charges-ford-profited-by-nazi-era-forced-labor.html?scp=90&sq=&st=nyt

  7. Mr A says:

    Excellent posts Magnetic. I also believe that California performed, by far, the greatest number of lobotomies in the world, many, many thousands. Another example of their “improving the herd through medicine”…. the only difference being that this fact is now generally regarded with horror (apart from by the perpetrators, some of whom are still alive and justifying their actions), unlike the anti-smokers who now seem to be in the ascendant. Indeed, some Doctors performed travelling lobotomies, visiting town after town and performing the “operation” on scores of people each day.

    • Magnetic says:

      It is not surprising that California lead the “antismoking way” post-WWII, now looking into “thirdhand smoke danger”. It is a continuation of its strong eugenics heritage. California performed, by far, more sterilizations than any other state in the first half of the last century.
      http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/CA/CA.html
      Some insight into the connection between American eugenics – California in particular – and Nazi eugenics.
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL

      California has only recently formally and publicly apologized for its sterilization past.

      Click to access davis_release.pdf

      Click to access lockyer_letter.pdf

      Click to access senate_resolution_20.pdf

      However, the California elites still have a strong eugenics proclivity. The emphasis has been shifted from physical sterilization to social sterilization along the behavioral dimension of eugenics, e.g., antismoking.

      Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden, NYC, 1938

      A well-buried, little-known fact is that in late-1933/early-1934, just after the fascists were installed to power in Germany, there was an attempted coup in the USA intending to install a fascist [shadow] government. This is known as the “Business Plot”. A congressional investigation concluded that there was an attempted, but failed, coup. The wrong man was picked to lead the coup, who then turned whistleblower. No prosecutions followed (possibly deals). The attempted coup involved a “who’s who” of the mega-wealthy in the USA, many of them the same supporters/funders of eugenics.

      BBC documentary





  8. Magnetic says:

    Tobacco was opposed by racial hygienists fearing the corruption of the German germ plasm, by industrial hygienists fearing a reduction of work capacity, by nurses and midwives fearing harms for the ‘maternal organism’. Tobacco was said to be ‘a corrupting force in a rotting civilization that has become lazy’, a cause of impotence among men and frigidity among women. The Nazi-era anti-tobacco rhetoric drew from an earlier generation’s eugenic rhetoric, combining this with an ethic of bodily purity and performance at work. Tobacco use was attacked as ‘epidemic’, as a ‘plague’, as ‘dry drunkenness’ and ‘lung masturbation’; tobacco and alcohol abuse were ‘diseases of civilization’ and ‘relics of a liberal lifestyle.’ (Proctor, 1997, p.441).

    Eugenics represents a self-installed elite that view themselves as owning/ruling the rest of the population. Its essential foundation is physicalism and the cult of the body. Eugenics is statist/fascist in disposition where it dictates to members of the “herd” how they should conduct themselves in all things concerning the body which is “owned” by the elite/State. The “herd” members should conform to prescriptions/proscriptions as their “duty to the State”. The major interest of the elite in the “herd” is as a labor force servicing the industry owned by the mega-wealthy: Herd members are no more than “cogs” in the overall “system” or machine, either a cog in the industrial, military, or administrative machines.

    Eugenics is antismoking. It views smoking as a waste, an act that has no positive aspects or redeeming value. Smoking is viewed as an addiction that detrimentally affects work performance. And, as the Nazis noted, it is a symptom of degeneracy and laziness. All of these views are entirely questionable. Yet we are currently seeing the entire spectrum of the eugenics view of smoking. We are currently hearing the same claims that have been made for at least a century.

  9. IT HAS TO END

    Nevada just friday JUNE 17TH basically repealed their indoor smoking ban at least if you listen to tobacco control sources!

    No doubt many more such state repeals will be forth comming.

    I just find it so utterly a failure the anti-tobacco crusade. Like all movements their zest is real and their beliefs undeterred by actual science.

    People who work together for the real common good, do so with the peoples rights left intact.
    The second an agenda steps on people and criminalizes them they have set in motion their own movements failure. Without respecting the rights of the people a movement cannot stand!

    Manipulation of science,the taking over of health depts,governmental health agencies,the stacking of politicians that favor your sides agenda…….Its anything but american and more describes a dictatorial roll rather than a constitutionally protected right to exist.

    Public health and its advocates are fast becoming the most despised and hated group around the world as citizens find themselves criminalized for behavior that isnt a crime.

    These ideals of such groups if left unchecked are the foundation stones of even more outlandish laws and less and less freedom for everyone.

    A movement such as this can lead to world wars as we saw in the past century…….basic freedom for the basic man keeps the balance and prevents a growing hatred against such movements from spreading their ever growing hate into even bigger arenas of political life.

    What drives anti-tobacco isnt just a hatred of smoking its much larger with tobacco just one of their targets,its larger than the obese people they wish to criminalize or the alcohol industry they wish to destroy……….

    Their hatred goes much deeper its a hatred of american ideals,its a hatred of anything or anyone who stands in the way of their ideal world!

    Its a hatred so vast and deep it has its roots in a socialistic facist way……….

    The same as hitlers own party of national socialists……….while not a carbon copy of the nazis the policies are a carbon copy. The fear of such groups is the eugenics attitude such groups hold and when collected together they are the foundings of such political beliefs to surmise the national socialist movement………

    Its to this building ideology that tobacco control and their eugenics beliefs must be stopped.

    • What I am trying to say here,is just what we have been talking about in this discussion.

      The eugenics movement and anti-tobacco/anti-alcohol movements were so closely related that those same attitudes are going to lead us down the path to more wars. Add in the economic times/great depression and the growing riots around the globe against government. We can say its gonna happen!

      Last nite Obama starts to pull troops from afganistan with matt drudge immediately posting the taliban will quickly move in to fill the void america leaves…..Given TEN years or so and we get the hitler/nazi movement type of people who will begin the unravelling of world society. The JIHAD is so closely tied in political ideaology to hitlers besides the moslem brotherhoods direct connections to hitler from the last world war.its not hard to see it comming!

  10. Britain: New Smoking Ban Is Pressed

    On a vote of 78 to 66, the British House of Commons agreed Wednesday to consider outlawing smoking in private vehicles carrying children in an effort to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke. The vote ordered the government to draft a ban.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/world/europe/23briefs-NEWSMOKINGBA_BRF.html?ref=world

  11. Philip Davies leads the charge against a ban on smoking in cars
    By Jonathan Isaby
    Follow Jonathan on Twitter

    Labour MP Alex Cunningham yesterday presented a ten-minute rule bill to ban people from smoking in private vehicles where there are children present.

    He argued that children are are at particular risk from passive smoking, the public favour such as ban as he proposes and that MPs ought to support his bill to protect the health of children.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/06/philip-davies-leads-the-charge-against-a-ban-on-smoking-in-cars.html

  12. Rose says:

    The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45. – without subscription
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040
    First thing I ever found on anti-tobacco.

    I was so shocked!

    Tobacco “tar”.

    Angel H Roffo: the forgotten father of experimental tobacco carcinogenesis
    Robert N Proctor

    “In 1931, writing in the Zeitschrift für Krebsforschung (he published much of his work in German), he noted that while there were cases in which tobacco was clearly to blame for the onset of certain malignancies (from clinical observations) it was nonetheless useful to document the phenomenon more generally by animal experiments.

    Reasoning by analogy from the production of cancer using coal tars, he argued that the carcinogens in tobacco smoke must be the complex, tarry, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, rather than the (chemically simpler) inorganic constituents or the alkaloid nicotine.”

    Not everyone was convinced by Roffo’s studies, however. Ernest Kennaway in England had pioneered animal experimental techniques for replicating occupational cancers (especially from petrochemicals), and he objected that Roffo had burned his tobacco at too high a temperature to be realistic.

    Roffo’s methods of chemical identification also came under scrutiny. He had used spectrographic fluorescence to identify specific components within the class of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and some critics thought the method too crude to be decisive. The tobacco industry objected to his use of a method known as destructive distillation to obtain tars for experimental manipulations, though that was actually a standard method used by the industry itself in the 1930s.

    For many of his contemporaries, however, Roffo was a force to be reckoned with. Schairer & Schöniger in 1943 cited Roffo’s experiments as evidence of the carcinogenicity of tobacco tar, as did Franz Hermann Müller in 1939 and Fritz Lickint in his great Tabak und Organismus”
    http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862006000600020&lng=en&nrm=iso

    RESEARCH FINDINGS from the Institute of Experimental: Medicine for Cancer Research and Treatment, Buenos Aires
    Director: Prof. A.H. Roffo
    Carcinogenic Element in Various Tobacco Tars

    “tobacco smoking can be included among the other toxico-manias that can have serious consequences and tobacco itself can be considered as a carcinogenic substance that, through its hydrocarbon content works like the benzopyrene derivatives of coal”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/85869514-9521.html

    “At higher temperatures the destructive distillates of petroleum, human skin, and yeast cholesterol (tg), turpentine (56), rice polishings and crude sugar (an), all were shown to be carcinogenic. Tobacco, like many of the above substances, is a complex mixture d chemicals, and by subjecting it to combustion and destructive distillation processes many workers have attempted to obtain carcinogenic substance.

    “The still was filled with a.5 kg. of dry tobacco: the asbestos gasket, soaked in water-glass (liquid sodium silicate), put in place; and the lid fastened tightly so as to prevent the escape of fumes. The still was then slowly heated to 700° C. Six to 8 hours were required for a distillation. A straight-tubed water-cooled con- denser leading into a filter flask was used to collect the water and tar, and the noncondensable products were led into a hood.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/1224.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=1

    Deposition of Wilhelm C. Hueper
    “That means that the experimental findings once reported by Dr Wynder and previously reported by Dr Roffo in which they reported that a very high percentage of their mice developed cancer of the skin when they were treated with tobacco tar, was not confirmed by any other investigator.
    In fact some of the investigators could not produce any cancer of the skin in mice with tobacco tars.
    That observation indicates that tobacco tars of various derivation differ obviously a great deal in their carcinogenic potency to the skin of mice.

    What the situation is in regard to men I don’t think anyone can even venture a guess.

    All experiments which have been done with tobacco tar produced artificially are based on artefacts. That is based on materials or obtained with materials which may or may not be identical chemically with tobacco smoke that enters the human mouth, and we know that the chemical constitution and particularly the content of any carcinogenic material in the combustion production of carbonaceous materials, and that applies also to tobacco, can be fundamentally influenced by the conditions under which that tar is produced.That is the heat and the oxygen supply mostly.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/503243231-3367.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=31

    Franz H. Müller’s 1939 Case-Control Study

    “Roffo and Lickint had shown that smokers of three packs a day would inhale a total of four kilograms of tar over a period of ten years; Müller added that the tar content of cigarettes had risen in recent years, a phenomenon he blamed–following Wender and Ferrari–on the increasing use of tobacco stems in cigarette manufacture. He was also worried about the economic burden of smoking, trotting out the widely publicized fact that 10 percent of the entire national income was going to cigarettes and alcohol.”

    “Documenting the lung cancer hazard of smoking was one of the more remarkable achievements of this period. Angel H. Roffo of Argentina (1882-1947), who published much of his work in German cancer journals, had already shown by 1930 that tars derived from tobacco smoke could induce cancer in experimental animals; in subsequent experiments he found that certain tobacco tar distillates could produce tumors in as many as 94 percent of all animals exposed.
    (Roffo was important in shifting the emphasis from nicotine to tar as the primary tobacco cancer hazard; Lickint by 1936 could state that nicotine was “probably innocent” of carcinogenic potency and that benzpyrene was probably the guilty party.)
    http://toxicology.usu.edu/endnote/Proctor-Nazi-war-tobacco.htm

    Abuse of Tobacco and Carcinoma of Lungs – Muller
    JAMA 1939
    “The fact that about one third of the subjects surveyed smoked moderately or not at all indicates the presence of other cancerigenic factors besides smoking, such as influenza and industrial working conditions.
    The great significance of the latter can be inferred from various indications but needs further study.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/4164.html

    “Pathologists, meanwhile, continued to argue about the reality of the increase. Some, however, had been sufficiently impressed to try to produce cancer with tobacco tar on the skin of laboratory animals.

    Roffo succeeded in doing so in the Argentine in 1931, using rabbits, but his results were generally dismissed in the UK and the US on the grounds that the tobacco had been burnt at unrealistically high temperatures. Experiments in Britain were negative (Leitch, 1928; Passey, 1929) apart from one which produced one cancer in 50 animals and led Cooper et al (1932) to conclude that “tobacco tar is relatively unimportant in the causation of cancers”.
    http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhealth/27/9111806.htm

  13. Rose says:

    “Late in the war, nicotine was suspected as a cause of the coronary heart failure suffered by German soldiers on the eastern front. Military physicians debated the culpability of tobacco in this regard: a 1944 report by an army field pathologist found that the thirty-two young soldiers examined by him–all of whom had died from heart attacks at or near the front–had all been “enthusiastic smokers.” The author cited the Freiburg pathologist Franz Büchner’s view that cigarettes should be considered “a coronary poison of the first order”; he also recognized, though, that certain “spiritual changes” brought on by the war were likely to have contributed to the disease.”
    http://toxicology.usu.edu/endnote/Proctor-Nazi-war-tobacco.htm

    Hitler’s Drugged Soldiers

    “The Nazis preached abstinence in the name of promoting national health. But when it came to fighting their Blitzkrieg, they had no qualms about pumping their soldiers full of drugs and alcohol. Speed was the drug of choice, but many others became addicted to morphine and alcohol.”

    Many of the Wehrmacht’s soldiers were high on Pervitin when they went into battle, especially against Poland and France — in a Blitzkrieg fueled by speed. The German military was supplied with millions of methamphetamine tablets during the first half of 1940. The drugs were part of a plan to help pilots, sailors and infantry troops become capable of superhuman performance. The military leadership liberally dispensed such stimulants, but also alcohol and opiates, as long as it believed drugging and intoxicating troops could help it achieve victory over the Allies.”

    Toward the end of the war, the Nazis were even working on a miracle pill for their troops. In the northern German seaport of Kiel, on March 16, 1944, then Vice-Admiral Hellmuth Heye, who later became a member of parliament with the conservative Christian Democratic party and head of the German parliament’s defense committee, requested a drug “that can keep soldiers ready for battle when they are asked to continue fighting beyond a period considered normal, while at the same time boosting their self-esteem.”

    A short time later, Kiel pharmacologist Gerhard Orzechowski presented Heye with a pill code-named D-IX. It contained five milligrams of cocaine, three milligrams of Pervitin and five milligrams of Eukodal (a morphine-based painkiller). Nowadays, a drug dealer caught with this potent a drug would be sent to prison.”
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,354606,00.html

    “The period to recover from the drug effect was getting longer and longer, while attention concentration ability was getting weaker and weaker. This eventually resulted in messages of lethal outcome in several Nazi divisions in France and Poland.”
    http://www.rense.com/general34/enhance.htm

    You can quite see why they might prefer to blame tobacco for these deaths.

    Junkies in jackboots: Nazi soldiers given highly addictive crystal meth to help them fight harder and longer

    “Physician’s group president Jörg-Dietrich Hoppe said: ‘I will be the last president of this group who lived through this time.

    ‘It is intolerable to think that so many physicians were silent or complicit in what was done in the name of medicine at this time.’
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371512/Nazis-fed-speed-infantrymen-tested-cocaine-like-stimulant-concentration-camps.html

    Incidentally,a little perspective.

    UF students caught in middle of tobacco case’s controversy – 2009

    “To advance your own cause at the expense of graduate students trying to get through college strikes this court as appalling,” Judge Williams Parsons wrote in an order restricting Proctor’s contact with witnesses.”

    “Attorneys for the tobacco companies found out about the e-mail exchange and filed motions alleging witness tampering and harassment in two Florida cases in which Proctor was testifying. Jones Day attorney Theodore Grossman said both sides are free to access experts in the legal process and no one is supposed to go outside the courtroom to tamper with that process.

    “These graduate students were doing totally appropriate work,” he said. “It’s a shame that someone that has an interest in the litigation would seek to interfere with them.”

    “The Volusia County judge’s order called Proctor’s behavior “the lowest of the low.” It ordered him to have no contact with witnesses among other orders about his testimony.

    Proctor said the issue was a “classic tobacco industry distraction.”
    http://www.gainesville.com/article/20091208/ARTICLES/912081008/1118?p=1&tc=pg

    So it wouldn’t be unreasonable to consider his praise for the earlier heros of Tobacco Control just a touch one sided.

    Tobacco policies in Nazi Germany: not as simple as it seems

    Introduction
    “The tobacco industry and its supporters have linked contemporary proposals for tobacco control measures with Nazi policies. Recent examples often draw selectively on the descriptions by Davey Smith et al and Proctor of Nazi campaigns against tobacco in Germany, even though Proctor warned specifically against this selective interpretation.
    In a section in his book entitled ‘Playing the Nazi card’, he suggested that the industry’s use of such arguments was likely to increase as tobacco control efforts gathered strength”

    “However, if a campaign was to be launched, it should be in no way aggressive, insulting or abusive towards smokers.”

    “What this paper has been able to do, particularly through the account of discussions within the Reich Propaganda Department, is provide additional insights into the differing views within the Nazi hierarchy, and indeed how measures were taken to constrain what were seen as the excesses of the anti-tobacco lobby.

    Furthermore, as will be shown in a subsequent paper, the Nazi authorities in Austria were even more tolerant.

    In conclusion, the widespread use of Nazi imagery by pro-smoking groups to attack those seeking to limit the harm caused by tobacco is a distortion of history that cannot be justified.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2441844/?tool=pmcentrez

    So there, you have been told, don’t associate TC with Nazis as the current crop are far more ruthless and don’t appreciate the comparison with such amateurs.

  14. Rose says:

    By strange coincidence, I was wandering around the local garden centre the other day, not an unusual event, when I saw an edelweiss in a pot on an otherwise bare table.
    Now I’ve never seen an edelweiss in the garden centre before, and whether I was channelling Julie Andrews or some previous research, I just had to have it, no matter what the price.

    “For the anti-Nazi youth movements–the working class Edelweiss Pirates and the bourgeois Hamburg Swing Youth alike–the constant cigarette seems to have been almost a badge of resistance (figure) and was referred to as a sure indicator of their degeneracy in the surveillance reports produced by the Hitler Youth.

    Indeed, one of the reasons for the relative failure of activities to prevent smoking in Germany since the war may be that the association of authoritarian antismoking efforts with the Nazi regime remained in popular memory for a long period.”

    Click to access bmj00579-0060a.pdf

    1939-1945: The Edelweiss Pirates

    “By the end of the 1930s, thousands of young people were finding ways to avoid the clutches of the Hitler Youth. They were gathering together in their own gangs and starting to enjoy themselves again.
    This terrified the Nazis, particularly when the teenagers started to defend their own social spaces physically. What particularly frightened the Nazis was that these young people were the products of their own education system.
    They had no contact with the old SPD or KPD, knew nothing of Marxism or the old labour movement. They had been educated by the Nazis in Nazi schools, their free time had been regimented by the HJ listening to Nazi propaganda and taking part in officially approved activities and sports.

    These gangs went under different names. Their favoured clothes varied from town to town, as did their badges. In Essen they were called the Farhtenstenze (Travelling Dudes), in Oberhausen and Dusseldorf the Kittelbach Pirates, in Cologne they were the Navajos. But all saw themselves as Edelweiss Pirates (named after an edelweiss flower badge many wore).

    Gestapo files in Cologne contain the names of over 3,000 teenagers identified as Edelweiss Pirates. Clearly, there must have been many more and their numbers must have been even greater when taken over Germany as a whole.

    Initially, their activities were in themselves pretty harmless. They hung around in parks and on street corners, creating their own social space in the way teenagers do everywhere (usually to the annoyance of adults). At weekends they would take themselves off into the countryside on hikes and camping trips in a perverse way mirroring the activities initially provided by the HJ themselves. Unlike the HJ trips, however, these expeditions comprised boys and girls together, so adding a different, more exciting and more normal dimension than provided by the HJ.

    Whereas the HJ had taken young people away for trips to isolate and indoctrinate them, the Edelweiss Pirates expeditions got them away from the Party and gave them the time and space to be themselves.

    On their trips they would meet up with Pirates from other towns and cities. Some went as far as to travel the length and breadth of Germany doing wartime, when to travel without papers was an illegal action.

    Daring to enjoy themselves on their own was a criminal act. They were supposed to be under Party control. Inevitably they came across HJ Streifendienst patrols. Instead of running, the Pirates often stood and fought. Reports sent to Gestapo officers suggest that as often as not the Edelweiss Pirates won these fights.
    “I therefore request that the police ensure that this riff-raff is dealt with once and for all. The HJ are taking their lives into their hands when they go out on the streets.”

    The activities of the Edelweiss Pirates grew bolder as the war progressed. They engaged in pranks against the allies, fights against their enemies and moved on to small acts of sabotage. They were accused of being slackers at work and social parasites. They began to help Jews, army deserters and prisoners of war. They painted anti-Nazi slogans on walls and some started to collect Allied propaganda leaflets and shove them through people’s letterboxes.”
    http://libcom.org/history/articles/edelweiss-pirates

    Teenage rebels who fought Nazis are honoured at last

    “A group of rebellious teenagers who formed a resistance network against the Nazis are being honoured after almost 60 years of neglect by the German authorities, who considered them no better than common criminals.

    The Edelweiss Pirates, as they were known, were working class teenagers from western Germany who fought the Hitler Youth and helped resistance groups, risking imprisonment and death.

    The Gestapo declared the group criminals in the 1940s, a tag which was allowed to remain for 60 years.”

    The efforts of the White Roses, a similar, but much smaller group based at Munich University who were executed for distributing resistance leaflets, have been celebrated since shortly after the war.

    But it has taken until now for the Edelweiss Pirates, who are thought to have numbered more than 5,000, to be recognised.

    They not only produced and distributed leaflets, and wrote anti-war graffiti, they also took on groups of Hitler Youth in street battles and stole food, supplies and even some explosives to supply small local adult resistance groups.

    Groups from different areas would meet in the countryside, to swap information gained from illegally listening to the BBC world service, or to plan leaflet drops in each other’s towns so the local police would not recognise them – but also to sing songs and indulge in relationships, an aspect of teenage life frowned upon by the strictly segregated Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1492771/Teenage-rebels-who-fought-Nazis-are-honoured-at-last.html

  15. Nicotine nazis………..it just sounds so nice!

    • Rose says:

      I particularly enjoyed Rod Liddle’s “Tobacco Taliban” and was even more delighted when Stanton Glantz appeared to accuse the Times of being a front group for the tobacco industry.

      “Nicotine Nazis strike again”: a brief analysis of the use of Nazi rhetoric in attacking tobacco control advocacy
      Nick K Schneider and Stanton A Glantz

      “Capitalising on fears of terrorist attacks in the Western world, this rhetoric is increasingly receiving a new focus, as more and more articles aim at the “Antismoking Ayatollahs” and the “theocracy of the Tobacco Taliban,” especially in the British Isles.

      The tobacco control community should identify and monitor the use of extremist imagery and rhetoric by the tobacco industry and its front groups, to unveil their strategies and counter their attacks on effective tobacco control and its advocates.

      It remains to be unveiled if the Tobacco Taliban will one day replace the Nicotine Nazi. In the meantime, such rhetoric should not deter public health advocates (and the media) from educating the public about the adverse effects of tobacco use and secondhand smoke.”

      What this paper adds

      “Historically accurate or not, the tobacco industry has drawn connections between tobacco control and authoritarianism, evoking the rhetoric and symbolism of Nazi Germany. The tobacco industry has used and promoted Nazi and health fascism rhetoric in the United States and United Kingdom and around the world for decades and successfully penetrated the popular media, including sources with no identifiable ties to the tobacco industry. Identification and monitoring of the use of extremist imagery and rhetoric are crucial to counter this strategy.”
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736555/

      “Capitalising on fears of terrorist attacks in the Western world, this rhetoric is increasingly receiving a new focus, as more and more articles aim at the “Antismoking Ayatollahs” and the “theocracy of the Tobacco Taliban,” especially in the British Isles.”

      Don’t they talk utter trash.

      I don’t think they can quite get to grips with the dedication, humour and ingenuity of the general public around the world, who will willingly make a laughing stock of them for free.

      Resist the tobacco Taliban

      “A taxi driver once told me about a Japanese passenger he’d driven around central London, a chap mesmerised and delighted by one unheralded attraction of our capital. “There are so many elegant, well-dressed prostitutes,” he exclaimed, “and plying their trade in broad daylight outside every office!” He was referring, of course, to that characteristic huddle of temps and secretaries you find in the doorway of every London building, chugging away like billyo on their Marlboro Lights.”
      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article678916.ece

      • Tim says:

        “There are so many elegant, well-dressed prostitutes,” he exclaimed, “and plying their trade in broad daylight outside every office!” He was referring, of course, to that characteristic huddle of temps and secretaries you find in the doorway of every London building, chugging away like billyo on their Marlboro Lights.”
        ————–
        Tee-hee-hee-hee – oh, my filthy dirty mind, how quickly it sinks into the gutter.

        So here is the solution then. Outside every office building in London, out by the curb so it’s well seen, they install those same poles for dancing like they use in the strip clubs.

        Every office girl and boy coming out for their smoke break should be encouraged to rub and wrap around the dancing poles, fags in hand, looking like glorified call-girls and rent-boys on sale to the highest bidder.

        After enough people and impressionable teens get enough eyefuls of that, then tobacco advertising won’t ever be needed again – it will be the best advertisement tobacco could ever have.

        Anti-tobacco is essentially doing the advertising by pushing smoking out into the streets – why not turn it into a strip show for the passers by, thinks my filthy little mind.

  16. Magnetic says:

    The current crop of eugenics fanatics have been caught out – badly. Many groups and governments had fully committed themselves to the smokefree “utopia” long before the Nazi or eugenics connection became apparent. With this new information the fanatics had two options. Firstly, they could recognize that they had gone down an already trodden, twisted path and curtail their commitment to a deranged agenda. Or, secondly, they could rationalize their current insanity as being fundamentally different from the eugenics of earlier last century.

    Given that eugenics thinkers are typically superficial, they have opted for the latter. And, Proctor’s biased proffering is at least partly an attempt to contain the fallout. Proctor does not make the critical connection between Nazi and earlier American eugenics because he underplays eugenics as a philosophical framework that demands certain stances.

    The facts are that the current antismoking crusade (and anti-alcohol, prescribed diet, and physical exercise) has been pushed by the standard eugenics personnel – physicians, biologists, zoologists, pharmacologists, statisticians, behaviorists – using the same long-discredited view of smoking (i.e., nicotine addiction). Although religions or “temperance groups” have been manipulated into the derangement since, these were not involved in the beginnings of the current crusade. The current crusade has been produced by physicalism. Healthism is physicalism; it is the behavioral dimension of eugenics; it is applied biology at the behavioral level. Further, there is the same preferred method of achieving social goals – propaganda and denormalization. There is now a very large, global, entrenched Public Health bureaucracy peddling the “medical model” through constant terrorizing of the public. In addition to ideological investment, there are also industrial interests involved such as the pharmaceutical cartel. This partnering of ideology and economic interests – an “industrial socialism” – is highly dangerous.

    The current fanatics cannot disengage from their derangement. So they attempt to distance themselves from their twisted predecessors in a variety of ways. They contort history. They contort the scientific method. They contort philosophical frameworks. They contort ideo-politics. All this contortion allows them to claim – “We’re not like those [evil] people [eugenicists]. We’re only trying to reduce the harm done by tobacco”. In addition to all their other common contortions, the current fanatics don’t comprehend that this sort of claim, too, is a give away. Their predecessors made the same sort of claims, e.g., “for a healthier society”, while perpetrating an insanity on a grand scale.

    • Magnetic says:

      Consider the World Health Organization’s definition of health instituted in 1948:
      The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health in its preamble as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being.”

      Notwithstanding a few questionable concepts such as “complete”, we can be sure that this definition was a direct result of the Nuremberg trials addressing the horrors of Nazi eugenics. Whatever was directed at Nazi eugenics was also directed at American eugenics. Eugenics is biologically reductionist or, as noted by the Nazis, “applied biology”. The WHO definition attempts to account for the fact that health is more that just absence of disease, more than just a biological phenomenon. It involves other dimensions such as psychological and social.

      Given that this WHO definition was put into circulation by Brock Chisholm, the first director of the WHO and a eugenicist, there is always a suspicion as to how the WHO, a medical organization, could potentially warp this definition in the long-term. It could well have been an “appeasing” definition, given the anti-eugenics sentiment of the time.

      However, what should be noted is the limited scope of the WHO. It does not have a monopoly on health. Being a medical organization, it is intimately bound to the biological level. It would have to accept that there are aspects of health that are not its domain or jurisdiction. Just this idea, properly applied, should discourage potentially destructive ventures into social engineering as was seen in eugenics.

      Yet with all this history, as we have seen over the last half century, particularly pertaining to antismoking, the WHO and the medical establishment generally, and contrary to the WHO’s very own definition of health, have deteriorated back into a biological reductionist view of health and ventures into social engineering.

      Over the last half century, health has been reduced to the behavioral dimension of eugenics – anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, prescribed diet, and physical exercise. The WHO adopted antismoking as a societal ideal many decades ago (Godber Blueprint) and now most nations are signed-up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. With this ideological stance comes social engineering, i.e., coercion to conformity.

      We have seen smoking bans on hospital grounds where patients have to venture considerable distances in night-attire and in all manner of weather to have a cigarette. This becomes a psychological and social health issue. Indoor smoking bans with no prospect of accommodation have alienated particularly the elderly. This is a psychological and social health issue. Denormalization, a repugnant, vulgar concept very much identified with eugenics, has again come to the fore. Smokers have been incessantly slandered, ridiculed, and terrorized by official, government programs of denormalization. This is a psychological and social health issue. Many nonsmokers have been manipulated into irrational fear and bigotry to advance the ideological cause. This is an issue of psychological and social health. Smokers are being bullied out of normal social life on a purely ideological basis. This is an issue of psychological and social health. With this propaganda barrage, medical care professionals are demonstrating a cruel, bigoted streak – again – that can compromise the medical treatment of those who smoke. This is an issue of psychological, social, and physical health. Not only are psychological and social health issues important in their own right, but these can also have detrimental ramifications for physical health. Health has again been reduced to quantification, dollar cost-benefit analyses, another eugenics trait.

      Everywhere we turn health has again been reduced to only a biological phenomenon (e.g., behavioral) and with the [eugenics] intent of social engineering. “Get healthy”, “he’s looking after himself”, “I work out” all pertain to physicalism, i.e., an “aristocracy of the bicep”. In the obsession with physicalism, psychological, social, moral, and ideo-political aspects of health have been brutalized and discarded – again.

  17. I will smoke another one to that magnetic……same agenda its just a diferent date!

  18. Magnetic says:

    THEN

    “In 1876, Kellogg agreed to become superintendent of a small reform medical institution run by the Adventists, the Western Health Reform Institute, which then housed 20 patients. By the turn of the century, he had expanded it to accommodate 700 patients and had renamed it the Battle Creek Sanitarium; by the 1920s, it housed 1200 patients, including prominent industrialists and politicians. Kellogg invented a range of exercise equipment for the use of these paying guests.

    To improve the patients’ diet, Kellogg developed, patented, and introduced a variety of new foods, including Granola and Corn Flakes; he also invented peanut butter, artificial milk made from soybeans, and a variety of imitation meats. His younger brother, Will Keith Kellogg, later built a successful company to market his brother’s cereal creations; in so doing, he transformed the average American’s breakfast. Kellogg company profits were initially fed into the Race Betterment Foundation, which John Harvey created in 1914 to publicize and promote eugenics; later they flowed into the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

    John Harvey Kellogg was an early member of the American Public Health
    Association and served on the Michigan Board of Health from 1878 to 1891 and from 1911 to 1917. In 1922, he proudly listed the latter credential on the title page of his book Tobaccoism, or How Tobacco Kills, a sustained assault on the physiological, pathological, nutritional, eugenic, moral, and economic devastation caused by the “tobacco habit.”2 This book contributed to the antitobacco campaign of the 1920s that led to a bill introduced by Senator Reed Smoot in 1929 to bring tobacco under the regulatory purview of the Pure Food and Drug Act—an effort officially endorsed by the American Public Health Association.3 In the end, however, Congress failed to act and Americans continued their unhindered and unregulated consumption of cigarettes.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447485/

    EUGENICS AS BASIS OF NEW ARISTOCRACY; Would
    Consist of Apollos and Venuses, Says Dr. Kellogg — Sees
    Race Going to Seed. URGES STATE REGULATION Deems Health and Marriage Inspection Imperative — Luther Burbank Supports a Similar Idea.

    August 8, 1915, Sunday
    SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 7. — The world needs a new aristocracy — “a
    real aristocracy made up of Apollos and Venuses and their fortunate progeny” — said Dr.
    J.H. Kellogg, of Battle Creek, Mich., in an address tonight on “The Eugenics Registry”
    before the second National Conference on Race Betterment.
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9803E6DC153BE233A2575BC0A96E9C946496D6CF&scp=38&sq=eugenics&st=p

    NOW

    From the 5th World [Eugenics] Conference on Smoking and Health, 1983, Winnipeg, Canada

    Free apples, bananas, oranges and bran muffins were available at breaks during the Conference. Young athletes, clad in gymnasium attire, conducted brief exercise rituals for delegates at many sessions. Health for all. (p.23)
    http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIMN0449129-9153.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=1

    We now have a large global gym culture that didn’t exist 30 years ago. Gymnasia are selling points for hotels, apartment complexes, cruise ships, social clubs, etc. They’re all over the place now. In these gyms, people flex muscles for hours on end (or walk/run on treadmills – like rats in the lab) and strut about checking each other out [physically] or stare into mirrors in abject Narcissism, oozing vanity. They also spend copious amounts of time monitoring their diet. These are the eugenics “master people”, the “Apollos and Venuses” – the “aristocracy of the bicep”. Health, again, perversely reduced to only a physical phenomenon.

  19. smokervoter says:

    I also read through Proctor’s writings too fast the first time around to catch the fact that he not only is an antismoker, but an extreme one at that. I think that was by design. He and Glantz hold court in close proximity to one another and quite obviously trade strategies. Like you said, they decided to nip the Nazi comparisons in the bud.

    Where I fit into this is that I was at one time a college student in the general universe of their bully pulpits. I didn’t attend Stanford or USF but believe me, the culture was identical throughout the Bay Area academia communities. College profs like these two were the gurus of the young and hip. Students and street people were supposedly the alternate, non-conforming, counter culture opposed to the lockstep squares (L-7’s) of mainstream America. It was good and totally cool to think just like Glantz and Proctor told you to think. The groupthink was both palpable and glaringly hypocritical, at least to a scant few of us.

    It’s strange. I was at first blush stuck somewhere in the middle of things. Whereas I disliked the Establishment and considered myself one of the Young and Hip, I also had a weird hunch which I developed rather early on in the game, that these profs and their flocks had an incongruous puritan/totalitarian mean streak to them as well.

    One of my profs used to spend a lot of classroom time railing ad nauseam against supermarkets with their pesticide-laden produce and their white bread. I grew leery of him. I even remarked to a classmate that he reminded me of a Little Hitler at times. The classmate couldn’t believe that I could say such a thing. Another prof I had, who was an out-of-fashion conservative guy and the butt of a lot of jokes, started looking a lot more humane to me in comparison.

    After a couple of visits to some of the new local healthfood stores springing up around town, I took one look at the prices and went right back to shopping at the supermarkets. It just didn’t make any logical sense to me that the carrots I bought at the big, shiny stores had any harmful residual pesticides on them. I’d been eating them for years and suffered no ill effects whatsoever. And they cost half the price. Besides that, the posters at Wheatgerm Willie’s announcing the next meeting of the Santa Cruz Food Collective turned me completely off.

    By all outward appearance I had the look of one of the Proctorites with my bluejeans, beard and longhair, but down inside I really had my doubts about them, all based on a sneaking gut-level suspicion that these people represented the Third Reich mindset reconstituted for the Swinging Seventies audience.

    Proctor and Glantz know this and indeed that article he (Proctor) wrote was a preemptive chess move designed to keep his hipster pawns enthralled and in line.

    • alanx says:

      To Mr A, who posted some time above about lobotomy – thanks for mentioning this as it has been a concern of mine for a while.

      Interested readers with strong stomachs may wish to look at http://www.psychosurgery.org

      An important thing to realise about lobotomy is that in the 40’s and 50’s it was thoroughly endorsed by the mainstream medical community, and was done to tens of thousands in these years.

      I wouldn’t say that popular lobotomising sprang from a Eugenicist urge, but the lobotomy story shows royally what profound mistakes medical establishments can make, even when the doctors are on our side.

  20. Frank Davis says:

    Eugenics seems to be a disease of the medical profession. Perhaps even an endemic disease. After a period of respite in the post-war decades, it seems to have taken hold again with new virulence. It seems to particularly afflict the senior ranks of the profession. Why is this?

    Perhaps it’s simply that doctors spend their lives looking at disease, and so tend to see life through disease spectacles in ways that most other people don’t, or at least didn’t use to. ‘Health’ becomes their sole objective, as perhaps ‘money’ becomes the sole objective of stock market dealers.

    And I can’t help but think that there is a strong Darwinian rationale underlying the physical fitness craze, which has been going on for my entire life. ‘The Survival of the Fittest’ is taken literally. The physically fit see themselves as the likely survivors in a mass extinction event.

  21. Frank Davis says:

    A lecture by Robert Proctor

    I’ve not watched it all. It starts with weird stuff about cigarettes being produced at a rate faster than the speed of sound.

    He’s also apparently a panellist in a discussion of Darwin’s legacy

  22. AND THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH!

  23. Bill Brown says:

    I like the fact that the Tobacco Control community have had to start resorting to the use of “Godwins law” to defend themselves. They become less and less credible by doing so, and when confronted with facts they can’t refute, or questions they can’t answer, they invariably resort to the usual accusations of “Tobacco mole”, “Tobacco front group” or claim that it is the Tobacco industry that has adopted the NAZI doctrine in their quest to sell more cigarettes.
    I touched on this briefly here: http://inconvenientliberty.blogspot.com/2010/09/nazi-comparrison.html

  24. Rose says:

    War of words

    17 July 1999 by Richard Doll, Oxford

    “Robert Proctor is correct in thinking that few people know much about the public health measures of Hitler’s physicians (Opinion, 19 June, p 48), but he is wrong to imply that scientists have been ignorant of the medical research of the period.

    Opinions may differ about its quality and the conclusions that could be drawn from it, but it is just plain wrong to say that “Richard Doll . . . knew nothing of the Schairer and Schöniger article until he [Proctor] sent him a copy in 1997″.

    I published its findings in an article on the causes of lung cancer in Advances in Cancer Research, vol 3, p 9 in 1955 and have invariably referred to it in appropriate circumstances ever since.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321956.100

    Commentary: Schairer and Schöniger’s forgotten tobacco epidemiology and the Nazi quest for racial purity

    “Schairer and Schöniger’s paper was largely based on Schöniger’s medical dissertation, submitted in 1944. Schöniger’s, though, was only one of several dissertations produced at Astel’s institute.

    Gabriele Schulze and Käte Dischner in their jointly written Die Zigarettenraucherin (‘The Female Cigarette Smoker’, Jena, 1942), for example, interviewed 165 women as part of a study of the physical and psychological effects of nicotine withdrawal.

    Most of the women studied were incarcerated at prisons in Weimar, Gera or Kleinmuesdorf near Leipzig, where smoking was forbidden; the dissertation records the women’s cries for cigarettes, and attempts to classify female smokers by menstrual patterns, ‘constitutional type’ (asthenic, pyknic, leptosome, etc.), and criminal behaviour.

    The authors claimed that smoking made one vulnerable to tuberculosis and called for a total smoking ban for women, consistent with the Nazi slogan ‘Die deutsche Frau raucht nicht!’ (The German woman does not smoke!).
    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/31.full

    • Frank Davis says:

      “Robert Proctor is correct in thinking that few people know much about the public health measures of Hitler’s physicians (Opinion, 19 June, p 48), but he is wrong to imply that scientists have been ignorant of the medical research of the period.

      Of course Doll knew about the German research. He references a 1939 paper by Muller in the 1950 London Hospitals study!

      Proctor would like us to believe that the research of Doll and others was completely independent of the German research, like two people on different sides of the earth simultaneously spotting the same comet in the sky. But that’s not how it was. The post-war research was in many ways a continuation and repetition of the pre-war and wartime German research, with some improvements, like for instance better statistical measures.

      Proctor would like this so that he can say that a whole bunch of scientists who weren’t Nazis independently came to the same conclusion as the Nazi ones, and that just goes to show how good the original Nazi research was. But that argument doesn’t work once it has been established that the second bunch of scientists had seen the first bunch of scientists’ work. The post-war research wasn’t independent of the pre-war research.

      • Rose says:

        Deposition of Wilhelm C. Hueper. – 1957

        Q Would you say that such a statement to your knowledge was made as long ago as the 1920 to 1930 period?

        A Yes.

        Q Would Would you say that it was made by

        A It was in that decade that for the first time cigarette smoking was mentioned as one of the factors suspected of producing lung cancer.

        Q Was such a statement or similar statements along those lines published in medical journals and other medical recordss?

        A That is right, reputable European journals and the possibility of the question was ventilated that smoking of cigarettes might have something to do with lung cancer.

        Q How widespread was that?

        A There were repeated publications on that subject.

        Q Were those publications’available in the major cities of the United States?

        A Yes, if they would read them.

        Q In other words, anyone who was a doctor or not could go to any medical library and find it and read such statments’

        A, Yes, it was in general medical journals and readily accessable.”
        http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/503243231-3367.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=41

        I find his court testimony particularly useful as Proctor went to the trouble of doing a hatchet job on him.
        Which convinces to me that he knew exactly what he was talking about.

        Dr Huepers Secret
        By Robert Proctor

        “On September 28, 1933, Dr. Wilhelm Hueper, chief pathologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Cancer Research Laboratory, wrote to the Nazi minister of culture, Bernhard Rust, inquiring into the possibility of an academic or hospital appointment in the new Germany. Hueper had emigrated to the United States in 1923, and we know from his unpublished autobiography that he had worn the swastika on his Freikorps helmet as early as 1919.

        Now, only months after the Machtergreifung (Nazi seizure of power), the young pathologist was petitioning Nazi authorities to allow him to return to Germany to restore his bonds to German culture (deutsches Volks- und Kulturgut).

        It is not always easy to distinguish between conviction and opportunism in such matters. And though the distinction may not be as crucial as we like to think, Hueper’s apparent support for the Nazi regime (he ends his letter with an enthusiastic “Heil Hitler!”) still comes as a shock to anyone unfamiliar with the political landscape of European cancer activism in the 1930s.

        The story is a disturbing one, one that seems to violate some of our most cherished political prejudices. Hueper, after all, went on to become “the father of American occupational carcinogenesis,” the man who tried to alert medical officials to the hazards of unventilated uranium mining, and the man who, more than any other, brought the cancer hazards of pollutants in our food, air, and water to scientific attention.

        Hueper was the guiding light behind the ominous cancer chapter in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (titled “One in Every Four”), and it was Hueper who, only months before his death in 1979, was showered with honors for his work on occupational and environmental cancer.

        How could the hero of Silent Spring have found hope in the Nazi movement? What were German fascists saying and doing about cancer that might have led a man such as Hueper to bet his future on the Thousand Year Reich?”
        http://partners.nytimes.com/books/first/p/proctor-cancer.html

  25. Rose says:

    Lung cancer and tobacco consumption

    Schairer and Schöniger

    “The pronounced increase in lung cancer is a fact that has been established repeatedly in the years since 1920. The reason for this increase has been attributed to a range of circumstances by different authors.
    Most importantly, certain air pollutants have been investigated. Lung cancer due to occupational exposures is relevant in this context, which in the case of the Schneeberg lung cancer and cancer due to chromate or asbestos is recognized as an occupational disease. Exposure to exhaust fumes of motors, which are inhaled in many occupations but also by the general public in cities and on main roads, has also been examined.

    To this day it has not, however, been convincingly shown that increased inhalation of such fumes leads to an increase in carcinoma of the lung.

    Arguments against this notion include the experiments of Schmidtmann, the fact that country and city dwellers contribute to the same extent to the increase in lung cancer, and that occupations dealing with combustion engines are not particularly frequent among the diseased.”

    “Roffo et al.6 have successfully induced cancer by applying tar extracted from tobacco. Roffo also showed that the same tar contained the strongly carcinogenic benzpyrene. Taking into account that the tobacco consumed by a heavy smoker in 10 years would yield 4 kilograms of tar, it follows that considerable damage could be done to the epithelium of the airways, in particular if the smoke is inhaled.”

    Summary

    Following the studies of Müller (Cologne) an investigation into the consumption of tobacco was conducted among cancer cases of the Pathological Institute in Jena, and among a comparison group from the normal male population of the same age in Jena.

    We could confirm the report of Müller that non-smokers rarely get lung cancer whereas heavy smokers get it more frequently than the average. Conversely, we found few heavy smokers and many non-smokers and light smokers among patients with stomach cancer.

    Our comparison material was less than satisfactory and the association between heavy tobacco consumption and lung cancer is therefore statistically, and causally, only likely. In order to confirm this association, larger investigations are required which we hope to stimulate with the present investigation.”

    Article first published in German in Z Krebsforsch 1943
    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/24.full

    “the fact that country and city dwellers contribute to the same extent to the increase in lung cancer”

    1956
    “In fact the first observations on an appreciable rise in the frequency of lung cancer were reported from the highly industrialized cities of densely populated Saxony during the first two decades of this century.

    Some years later it was found that high lung cancer rates existed for the population of the industrialized territory of the Ruhr valley, while they were below average for the agricultural region of the Main valley.”
    http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/reprint/30/2/141

  26. Iro Cyr says:

    My apologies to all for not having the time to go thoroughly through all the comments. I will be reading them carefully the minute I get some quality time.

    I do however want to refer you to one of Gian Turci’s articles that he left us as part of his legacy. It deals with this exact same issue and from what I remember when I read it back then, it is worth everyone’s while.

    DENYING THE UNDENIABLE: A RESPONSE TO
    “NICOTINE NAZIS STRIKE AGAIN”
    Gian Turci for the FORCES International Board of Directors

    Click to access denying_the_undeniable.pdf

    Cheers until later.
    Iro

  27. Pingback: The Nazi Antismoking Legacy 2 | Frank Davis

  28. Pingback: Big Bad Tobacco | Frank Davis

  29. Usually I do not learn post on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to check out and do so! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thanks, quite great post.

  30. Im not goin to get in2 this argument, but the numbers and the fans and the respect GLOBALLY all says whos the best, so ill leave it @ thatback 2 the convo

  31. Pingback: Merchants of Doubt | Frank Davis

  32. Anbagsexps says:

    [b][url=http://www.handbagsvk.com]cheap hermes bags[/url][/b] Chanel purses and handbags might be e within reach inert diversities. Fendi ladies handbag This ensures that they do you apt to to each one blankets regarding your sophisticated sweetheart; due to general, rigorous patient to today’s person involving however. you will be able make sure that while you own an Chanel wallet,from suppliers handbags, you will definitely stay overconfident really being away from lasting the whole bunch.

    [b][url=http://www.cosobags.com]2013 hermes handbags[/url][/b] Hermes just might be by far the most popular france supplier any way you like. a history of this amazing family begun appearing in 1880 paris, europe,. Hermes is a high end could be comfortably seen to anyone with the eye because of tags, plus the more fashionably apathetic many in the planet have most certainly seen title without doubt if you are or possibly two nights,

    [b][url=http://www.bagsoneonsale.com]hermes outlet[/url][/b] Nepal. Alankomaat. Alankomaiden Antillit. because job substantial natural world throughout the offer almost every purse typically quite adobe flash and time for you to referred to as go. it might be described above that our wait in their futhermore world renowned layouts this kind of as being a unique pay money for kelly case or Birkin requires almost 6 quite several years based on the plethora of buff, skin and pores also known as stainless steel expected. so,thereby, It is unsurprising that these luxurious hermes handbags can be priced that will help with regard to five persons 6,

    [url=http://www.zhangxiaojun.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1840637]Hermes Birkin 40cm[/url]

    [url=http://www.myiphoneforum.com/home/space.php?uid=28267&do=blog&id=631359]Hermes White Scarf[/url]

    [url=http://www.shiid.com/forum/home.php?mod=space&uid=62487&do=blog&id=736068]Hermes H Belt Price[/url]

    [url=http://bbs.hsyjzx.com/viewthread.php?tid=1792764&extra=]Hermes Reversible Belt[/url]

    [url=http://www.ajfc.net/showtopic-218707.aspx]Unique Belts[/url]

  33. Pingback: Nowhere To Hide | Frank Davis

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.