No, They Haven’t Won

A bit of an uncharacteristic wail of despair from Chris Snowdon:

The asshole on the left begins by saying “We are in the midst of the biggest public health crisis in the history of the world.” He’s not talking about the Black Death, cholera, influenza, malaria or even cigarette smoking. He’s talking about people drinking fizzy drinks in North America. The guy is either ignorant or insane or a liar. This one statement is enough to discredit him and yet he has made another video in which he says: “Fructose is ethanol without the buzz … fructose is poison.” That video has had nearly two million hits on Youtube. It’s over. The morons have won.  (my emphases)

I wonder how many of the hits have been coming from incredulous viewers like Chris Snowdon (and me)?

But anyway, if you listen to the clip’s opening statement, it is itself a howl of despair.

“We are in the midst of the biggest public health crisis in the history of the world. And nobody even gets it. Nobody understands how important this is. Because they don’t consider it public health; they consider it personal responsibility.”

Nobody understands us! Nobody believes us! They’re really not any different from Richard Branson and James Hansen and Ted Turner et al., currently swanning around the Antarctic, wondering why nobody seems to believe in global warming any more, and blaming the evil oil companies for spreading disinformation just like the evil tobacco companies before them.

They’re losing it. Someone like me now has zero trust in any of these “health experts”. I automatically dismiss everything they say. All of it. Every last crumb and calorie and tumbler of “distilled sugar”. And I didn’t used to be so totally dismissive. Really I didn’t.

And I doubt that I’m alone. Curmudgeon reported a few days back that even a former chairman of CAMRA is showing signs of rising from his grave waking up.

“The anti-alcohol mob poses a serious threat. I said several years ago that once the do-gooders had sorted out the tobacco industry they would move on to alcohol.

Well, it’s come true. The best body to stand up to the health fascists is CAMRA, but one has to ask the question. Has CAMRA got the balls for it?”

“Health fascists”? I thought it was just people like me that used language like that. And in answer to his question: No, they don’t.

There can hardly be anyone in the western hemisphere who hasn’t woken up by now just what a bunch of utter Nazis these health zealots really are. Just watch the video to see how they’re planning to double the price of soda to stop people drinking it. People may have laughed when the smokers got driven from their pubs, but I doubt there are quite so many laughing now.

And yet these Nazis have managed to squander their credibility despite having huge budgets, total media control, and 100% support from every government everywhere.

I don’t think they’ve won. I think they’ve lost. I think they’ve squandered the entire credibility of the medical profession on their insane health scares. Their authority is draining away by the year, by the month, and perhaps even by the day. And it’s going to take decades for the medical profession to recover what’s been lost, like some noble family whose scion has just bet all their money on Mr BandyLegs at 100 to 1 in the 3:30 at Newmarket, and lost it.

People like me are way past paying any attention to them. We’ve moved on to wonder how much they told us, back when we used to trust them, is going to turn out to have been yet more lies – but lies we swallowed and lies we will have to cough back up.

We’re moving into an era of collapsed belief and trust in authority. And it’s not just medical authorities, but every other species of authority as well. I mean, do you trust climate scientists? Do you believe that the politicians trying to hold the EU together have the first clue what they’re doing? No? Me neither. Join the club. It’s standing room only these days.

“You can’t trust anybody,” is going to be the watchword in years to come.

And all this before the impending global crash and depression has really even got started. If they’ve already been losing public trust when they had zillions of dollars to spend on government-sponsored media campaigns, how much more trust are they going to lose once the money spigot gets turned off, and they lose all their public funding?

But when they’re gone, it’s going to be people like me who’ll still be around. Angry people who lost their pubs and their communities and their friends because of what these bastards did to them. We’re not going to forget. Nor are we going to forgive.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

28 Responses to No, They Haven’t Won

  1. Tom says:

    I think trust in ‘them’ and the crashing economy are actually one in the same. Beautiful piece of writing.

  2. Reinhold says:

    Robert H. Lustig …
    “Lustig” is German and means “funny” or “amusing” or “droll”, by the way.
    And in theatre, a “Lustige Person” is a clown, a fool.

  3. GAinNY says:

    The continuing radioactive assault of Fukushima puts fizzy drinks in perspective.

  4. jaxthefirst says:

    I know I have this irritating habit of relating everything back to anti-smoking, but I really do think that that’s where all this started and that, ultimately, it was the anti-smoking campaigners’ inability to recognise when enough was enough, or to show any semblance of compromise, which kick-started all the others on this frenzy of “We’re all gonna DIIIIIE!!” They’ve seen how it worked for anti-smokers and they’re simply copying the same template.

    The trouble is, in the wake of countless smoking bans, smoking restrictions and anti-smoking “initiatives,” and with the much-promised smoke-free paradises failing to live up to expectations, they’ve become, in the public’s eyes, like the little boy who cried “wolf,” and a by-product has been that all and any other health campaigners are now, in the opinion of both the smoking and non-smoking public, tarred with the same brush.

    And, of course, they’ve left all those others with no trump cards to play. They’ve claimed all the serious illnesses as “theirs,” done to death the “for the cheeldren” line, and the “innocent bystander” line, ramped up the health-hysteria stories to hitherto unheard-of levels, and have, countless times, stated that tobacco is the “biggest killer” and the “greatest threat” to public health. So it’s no wonder that any health campaigns following theirs feel that they need to shout even louder, make even wilder claims and press for even more ludicrous restrictions, taxes and legislation against their own personally-disliked substance/activity if they are to be heard at all.

    It’s just a shame that they don’t realise that now, with the shrill cries of the anti-tobacco lobby fast beginning to fade to little more than an occasional whine as their funding diminishes, and with the dust beginning to settle on a new, often disappointing, largely smoke-free world, all that these new campaigners are doing by mimicking the anti-smoking lobby is making themselves look equally as bossy, hysterical and dishonest.

    But then, religious zealots rarely have much of a firm grip on reality, though, do they?

    • Barry says:

      You’ve hit on something there. Actually, I think religious zealots probably do have their own special grip on reality, and it’s called making money.

      I compare the banning-culture/nanny state to the widespread Pray-TV evangelist movement of the 80s. Using the new cable networks as their means, those organisations suckered millions of naive, middle-class bourgeois types by gathering donations.They raked in billions by just standing in front of the camera 24/7 and preaching; all they did was play on the viewer’s frail conscious and weaknesses. Every sentence they uttered had either Jesus, God or bible in it, it was such a simple method: when one speaker tired out, they called in the next, like an on-going relay race – a near perfect formula with minimum input, maximum profit.

      Then the decade was over, and the cow ran dry – so what? Billions were scored, it was never supposed to be a long-term industry – just a smooth, fast buck. And it worked!

      Today it’s just a new game, a new angle: punish people for doing something unhealthy. Raise a hue and cry, and set up a money-making system; it’s no longer prayers-for-profit, now it’s haggling-over-heath.

      Yes, the anti-smoking well is drying up, but there’s so much more. A grip on reality? I think turds like the guy in the video aren’t stupid, he knows what’s at stake and confident he’ll score – he’s still ahead of the pack, isn’t he?

  5. Junican PET says:

    Frank,

    I have just posted something very similar on the Bolton Smokers Club blog. Very similar, except that I have stated the same thing in terms of ‘macro-economics’. Briefly, the idea is that, via excessive taxes levied on smokers, ‘purchasing power’ has been transferred from smokers to Tobacco Control Zealots. But what makes the situation worse is that the zealots produce nothing at all except WORDS. Smokers produce goods, like beer and wine and bread and even cures for ailments. ASH ET AL, and the Arnotts of this world, produce NOTHING. They steal the ‘purchasing power’ of smokers and spend it upon themselves.

    I don’t think that I need to elaborate. Perhaps you can.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think this is an important point. The Arnotts of the world produce absolutely nothing. They seem to think they’re saving lives, but I don’t think they’re saving anything. There’s no clear proof of it. Instead they are just making life a lot worse for countless millions of people.

      It’s not just the antismokers and the health zealots. The AGW alarmists don’t produce anything either. They just hobble people with dim lightbulbs and regulations and wind farms that don’t work. They also are just making life worse for everyone.

      And then there’s the EU. It doesn’t produce anything either, except trillions of handicapping rules and regulations. All of which just makes life harder for everyone.

      And they’re all living off tax revenues too. And in the end, they’re just going to collapse the economies of the western world, and shut off the tax revenues that support them. They have become insupportable.

      Perhaps they want to collapse western economies?

      • Jon Campbell says:

        “I think this is an important point. The Arnotts of the world produce absolutely nothing. They seem to think they’re saving lives, but I don’t think they’re saving anything. There’s no clear proof of it. Instead they are just making life a lot worse for countless millions of people.”

        I wish that that were it, but they kill 10s of thousands with their irrational oposition to harm reduction.

        Sometimes I wish their were a hell cause Arnott and co would be heading straight to it and deservedly so, they should remember that the winner writes the history but eventually the truth comes out the, stats are pored over and their callousness will be evident to all. Even if we lose I think people will see that we were right all along.

  6. Walt says:

    It depends. There are 51 members of the NYC city council “representing” (not) 8 million people. It only takes 26 of them to pass any freaking ban, tax, propaganda campaign they want, and all with the prodding (and occasionally, threatening) of The Bloomberg. Governments both here and across the Atlantic don’t seem to care what the people think because they know they Know Better and besides, they believe it’s saving them money.

    Then, too, when I read the online comments in such places as the NY Times from soi-disant “educated” Liberals, they cheer all this crap. Smoke ban, salt ban, fat ban, carbon ban, they absolutely love it and properly detest smokers, salters and anyone else they’ve been told to detest and are allowed to feel superior to.

    The Awakening, if it comes, will be slow and painful. Too many people too far out on limbs to climb back gracefully. Too many laws already in place; smoke-hatred all too deeply ingrained. If the line gets drawn, smokers, I fear, will still be on the other side of the line.
    :

    • compae says:

      You’re right Walt. What i’m afraid of is that all that poeple thinking they “Know Better”, (much more, and more accurate) than the rest of the world, they have Two weapons on their armory to kill any objection to their own proud. The two weapons are both “words”: “INNOCENT”, “CHILDREN”, and “COMUNITY”, “PLANET”: The power of these two words ha become the same that four centuries ago with words like “inquisicion”, “hell”, “devil”, …
      Whatever they want to get that you agree………. just they use one of them (they don’t want you quit smoking for any reason, but want to protect “innocent” lifes). They don’t want (even mind) you breath fresh air at the City of London, New York,,,,,they want you to be concerned on planet atmosphere, telling you that if you’re not, How can you be concerned on you own town (comunity) atmosphere?
      But the worst words are “Scientific” and “Experts”. Including any of these in a phrase, it’s enough to probe that you’re missing any reason you may have. Don’t mind if you’re a pro at your own job. there it will be an “expert” over you saying your’re wrong. Don’t mind How someone became an “expert”, they are. If you don’t agree……. “you are demonised, your a witch, and the Inquisition will take to the fire pole” …..

  7. Kevin says:

    The telling phrase was: “how much do we need to tax to pay for programs…” i.e. us!
    A very obvious piece of rent seeking methinks. These people have no shame.
    California has brought us anti-smoking (yup the WHO program started in UCLA), satanic abuse,
    child porn scares, etc. The hippies are running things now, so where’s the peace and love, man?

  8. mikef317 says:

    I tried twice to post this on Chris Snowdon’s blog but it didn’t work. Here’s a revised version. It’s American centric.

    You can fool some of the people all of the time….

    The war against tobacco has waxed and waned ever since Christopher Columbus discovered Native Americans (Cubans?) smoking the evil weed.

    I’m sure you know, by 1900 (only about 15 years after manufacturing made them widely available), cigarettes were called coffin nails, dope sticks, devil’s toothpicks, and anti-tobacco zealots (“Smoke free America by 1925!”) proposed that every pack of cigarettes be labeled with a skull and crossbones and the word “poison.” Between 1895 and 1909 over a dozen U. S. states outlawed the sale of cigarettes (but not other forms of tobacco).

    The zealots didn’t get their smoke free utopia in 1925. State laws banning the sale of cigarettes were rescinded. Years passed, and smoking became increasingly popular. It’s said that America (with some help from you Brits) won World War II with coffee and cigarettes. During the war, U. S. tobacco farmers could get draft exemptions for performing a vital national service. By the 1960’s, some 70 million Americans consumed tobacco products.

    The latest (1950 and counting) crusade against smoking is just one of many over the last 500 years.

    I blame the success of the anti tobacco movement on the baby boom generation. Half of them, at least, are certifiable hypochondriacs. The latest health scare pornography gets them hysterically seeking protection from some imagined danger. (I’m part of the boom, but born in 1946, I escaped the worst effects. I grew up with the three martini lunch – alcohol, tobacco, butter, salt, sugar, soda (?!) were just things that people enjoyed – and, yes, that a small number abused.)

    …the forces of reason are no match for the forces of ignorance, avarice and fear which outgun us.

    They’ve won battles, but never the war. For a time, in the early 20th century, prohibitionists triumphed, but their victory turned to ashes (literally in terms of tobacco). Prohibitionists are once again ascendant – but for how long?

    These lunatics always seek the “next logical step” to fight imaginary demons. And with each step, they become more irrational, and affront more and more people. Eventually, average people examine the claims of Experts and find the Experts wanting. (Think global warming.)

    Mr. Snowdon, you sound pessimistic. Yes, but….

    With each post you (FD and others) write, you fire one bullet in the decades long war against rationality. (Literally decades, literally war.)

    Keep up the good work. If you can get one person to question authority, maybe a second will, and a third…. And actually, quite a few (but not enough) people recognize junk science when they see it.

    It may take 40 or 50 years, but I’m sure smoking will once again become popular. Then, sadly, 40 or 50 years later, it will be declared unacceptable because of some pseudo-scientific theory.

    All too often, people don’t learn – but they can. (Zealots never do.) History repeats. Every day, the prohibitionists alienate more people. In time, they will alienate one too many, and despite all their money and power, their utopian dreams will become the dust of history – but like movie monsters, they never really die; they lurk in shadows, always looking for that one first step that – step after step – will end with the perfection of the human race (using their definition of perfection, of course). History repeats.

    P.S.: Mr. Snowdon, I think I can accurately state that you do not believe second or thirdhand smoke nonsense. Yet you believe (like so many others) that primary smoking causes lung cancer. (Per your arguments during the CATCH debate.) Might I suggest that you think some more – if 3 is incorrect, and 2 incorrect, could the same ideology that “proved” 1 also be incorrect?

    You have cited Auerbach’s beagle study as “proof” that smoking causes lung cancer. Think again. There are three versions of this study. (Have you read all of them?) In the published version http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xfk21a00 , rather than 12 dogs with lung cancer, after autopsy, Auerbach only claimed 2 dogs with microscopic lung tissue abnormalities that he declared pre-cancerous. Other pathologists disagreed. I’d call this junk science, 1970’s style. (Too long for a comment; if you really think Auerbach is valid, FD can tell you my e-mail address [which I generally don’t give out], and I will provide a very nasty critique of Mr. A.)

    The lies about tobacco didn’t begin with secondhand smoke. Take the next logical step. If the case against primary smoking fails, all subsequent claims equally fail. If tobacco fails, can salt and sugar be far behind?

    • Fredrik Eich says:

      Mike, can’t you give this critique of Auerbach’s dogs study to Frank to post online?

      • I just cant help but repost this to Mikes comment:

        JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
        7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
        November 2004.

        http://cot.food.gov.
        uk/pdfs/cotstatement
        tobacco0409

        “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

        In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

        The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

    • What would be wonderful is if they actually find the genetic pathway of cancer and can cure it with just a shot,the governments would love it as the revenues are so vast,its golden!

      The only ones who would hate it are the radical nazis who just hate smoke or anything that allows folks to just enjoy living.

  9. Rose says:

    No, they haven’t won.

    I think it was remarkably stupid to move to alcohol, salt and now sugar with such haste.
    Had they let tobacco settle for a while instead of blundering straight into alcohol, people who had no interest in tobacco might not have noticed the same arguments and strategies being used against them, even using the same scary diseases for heaven’s sake, and by the same people.

    Meanwhile, from coasting along through the years, I have learnt all sorts of fascinating and useful things. It alters your whole attitude, since I getting a bread maker for Christmas, I make my own bread for friends and family, it’s twice as good and half the price, though I say it myself, made with real recognisable ingredients, fun too.

    While I was content to go to the supermarket to buy their vegetables until the ban, now my flower beds are mostly ripped up and filled with all manner of delights that are expensive to buy and also packaged in mean amounts.Now I control what’s available and the manner in which they are grown.
    It struck me quite forcibly after the ban how dependant I was on government whim and manufacturers complicity in supplying the things I want.

    An interesting thing I was discussing with Junican last night.
    Did you know that we had a fledgling tobacco industry in England in 1922?
    I had no idea.

    Hampshire Cigarettes

    “It is a complete fallacy to think that tobacco-cannot be successfully grown in this country. At the present moment it is grown in my constituency. I have cigarettes here which were grown in my constituency, which I shall be delighted to offer to any hon. Member. The tobacco is very much like Rhodesian tobacco of a light sort.”

    “Tobacco is grown on the very lightest soils. It is grown on the sands round Aldershot, which will not bear an ordinary crop. For that reason it is grown in parts of Berkshire and Norfolk.”
    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1922/jun/28/new-clause-excise-duties-on-homegrown

    I tracked it down.

    Church Crookham – 3 miles from Aldershot.

    “At Redfields Farm Mr A.J. Brandon commenced to grow tobacco as a commercial crop. This proved to be very successful and within a few years a large staff was employed to cultivate the plants and cure the leaves. The crop was then packed into huge barrels and sent to Salisbury to be blended and made into pipe tobacco or ‘Blue Prior’ cigarettes. (Tobacco was last grown on this farm in 1938).”

    Now if I hadn’t been made unwelcome in every coffee shop, restaurant, pub and hotel in the whole of Great Britain, I would never have been interested enough to bother to find that out.

  10. Rose says:

    Interesting, a piece in defence of Article 5.3 by Lord Faulkner .

    Smoke out tobacco companies influence

    “Tackling such entrenched and profitable vested interests is never easy. That is why Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention is so crucial. It clearly states that when political parties are setting and implementing public health policies related to tobacco control, they shall ‘act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.’
    http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/smoke-out-tobacco-companies-influence/

    I’d take a deep breath before you read the rest of that.

  11. Even if they were right – we have to die of something, and the world has to end one day. The sun won’t last forever. It will burn itself out. Then what?

  12. garyk30 says:

    A good idea from the ‘Bolton Smokers’ Club'(slightly modified):

    Public Health used to mean ‘The Health of everyone under the influence of external forces’. Now it means ‘the health of individuals who are behaving badly and the vague possibility of some effect on others’.

    Aren’t those definitions vague? Yes they are, and that is what Tobacco Control has deliberately engineered.

    The conclusion that I arrive at is that we must not allow ourselves to permit Tobacco Control to ‘frame the debate’.

    We must not allow 17 year-olds to be referred to as ‘children’ . When people like Williams MP talk of ‘children’ being attracted to cigarette packets, we must say, “10 year olds are only interested in eating sweats and stuff, and not eating fag packets”. Make the likes of Williams MP define the word ’children’. Go on and on about what children like so that, eventually, he has to say, “I don’t mean ‘children’.

    In every respect, as regards Tobacco Control, we must challenge them in that way.

    Challenge them on the meaning of words as we all understand them. Challenge their attempt to change the meaning of the phrase ‘PUBLIC HEALTH’.
    …………………………………..

    We must do the same with their ‘science’.
    Gary K.

    • We must do the same with their ‘science’

      We are gary! Everyday everywhere they foist there nazi ridden heads…..Im quite impressed with todays comments sections as more and more folks dont believe the junk science cast out upon them! Yes weve been very effective in destroying their myths!

      23 times retraction by the nazis was a very nice headline,lets make them eat more crow!

      Frank damn good post today,right on brother.

      Gary check your mail I need some info.

  13. “Hey Frank you getting any funding from big tobacco like me,I mean my new sail boat and bahamas trip was just great. how was yours? By the way hows that crop of tobacco comming,you know the crop we grow for self consumption because taxes are so bloody high,ya are company paid tobacco allotment should be here any day.

    Smokers’ rights groups” and retailer front groups will continue to claim they have a right to be heard. Perhaps so, but they should no longer have the right to hide from Parliament the payments and briefings they receive from tobacco corporations. The tobacco companies will still have the right to discuss how they comply with government health policies. They should no longer be the arbiters of what those policies should be.

  14. smokervoter says:

    Hello everybody. Things were getting quiet over at Livejournal’s Pro-Smokers forum so I opened up my big mouth and posted an article about Dr. Paul’s campaign for the Republican nomination and our roles as smokers in it. For some unknown reason, I feel indebted to keeping Pro-Smokers from atrophy.

    I cordially and respectfully invite old livejournalists like yourself Frank and Leg-Iron to pop in there and throw in a guest post or two, it would certainly liven up the place. It would also definitely elevate the caliber of composition, as I seem to be the lead author for now.

    By nature I’m not much of a joiner. I shy away from Facebook, Twitter and Google because of their confusing privacy settings and faddish zeitgeist. Likewise for Disqus, who I understand auto-publishes a public profile listing every comment you’ve ever made anywhere on the internet. No thanks.

    I’m not sure why I feel so comfortable with Livejournal but I do. Maybe it’s because they’re not Facebook and I joined up long ago.

    Anyway, if anyone feels like moseying over to Pro-Smokers to read my little treatise on Ron Paul and smokers who fail to vote here’s the link.

    • smokervoter I tried to log in and it said you must be a member! Geesh I checked in under facebook even and live journal……

      • smokervoter says:

        Geesh is right Harley. If the moderator there has made it into a private little club it’s a major blunder. I clicked on the link myself to test it and it took me right there. When I posted it, the Viewed by Everybody option was selected. I’ll check into it. Livejournal can be clunky now and then. I’ll definitely look into it. It’s a pretty damn good post.

        I’d appreciate finding out if anyone else had the same experience.

  15. Pingback: The Salt War reaches the cancer stage. | underdogs bite upwards

  16. Anyone else has the feeling that they are three actors just a minute before breaking into unstopable laugh? I did only watch this vid to believe it is real, but it is not, it’s worst than that: it’s in the border between comedy and tragedy. Greetings from Spain. Javier

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s