Prevention Is Worse Than Cure

I’ve been wondering today what’s the matter with the medical profession, and what to do about it (aside from firing half the doctors), and I began to wonder whether it was because the medical profession had collectively decided that “prevention is better than cure.” Rather than wait for people to get sick, they’ve decided to prevent them getting sick in the first place.

And that’s a rather attractive idea, on the face of it. Or it is at least rather attractive if you know what makes people get sick.

With diseases like malaria, it’s pretty well known how it’s caused. Malaria is transmitted by mosquitoes that bite humans, and inject the malaria parasite that  many of them carry – Plasmodium falciparum –  into the bloodstream in the process. So the incidence of malaria can be greatly reduced if people prevent mosquitoes from biting them, by keeping them away with nets and sprays and smoke, or prevent mosquitoes from multiplying by removing the stagnant ponds in which they breed. There are a variety of effective preventative measures that can be taken that will stop a great many people getting malaria in the first place.

The problems come when more or less anything can cause something. Take broken legs, for example. There isn’t one single cause of broken legs. Any number of things can cause them. People can break their legs by falling out of bed, or down stairs, or tripping over something, or playing football, or being hit by cars. There are an almost infinite number of causes of broken legs, and it’s never going to be possible to prevent broken legs, except in glaringly obvious cases – like cordoning off holes in roads so that people don’t fall into them.

It’s arguably even worse when you don’t really know what causes it, but pretend that you do. With both malaria and broken legs, there’s no real argument about the causes. But that isn’t the case with cancer. Nobody really has much of a clue what causes cancer. But that hasn’t stopped some medics claiming that it’s caused by smoking cigarettes. In fact tobacco has become the default cause of more or less every malady known unto man. If you don’t know what else might cause it, blame it on smoking. So now smoking causes everything. Including malaria and broken legs.

But then, once medicine flipped over to prevention instead of cure,  the new preventative medical model required some way of preventing cancer, and so needed something that had been assigned as the prime cause of cancer, because otherwise there’d be no preventative measures that could be taken. And that would be an awfully big hole in preventative medicine. So something had to be found as the cause of cancer, even if nobody knew what the cause really was. And that something was tobacco smoke. It gave the preventers something to prevent. It gave them something that they could restrict and ban, and show that they were actively preventing cancer.

But it’s not just that. If you think you know what causes something, and you fail to take the appropriate preventive measures, then it’s your fault if you come down with cancer/malaria/broken legs. So people now have only themselves to blame if they get sick. And since every disease is now known to be caused by smoking tobacco, people can only be sick because they smoke, or because they inhaled somebody else’s smoke, possibly from another town. And so increasingly the only preventive health measure that can be taken is to restrict smoking even more tightly.

And that’s another thing. Preventative medicine is highly intrusive, and requires behavioural changes. If you want to really prevent people from breaking their legs, you should make them wear knee and shin guards, and inflatable rubber leggings, and helmets, all the time. And they should only ever walk anywhere using walking sticks or frames or crutches, in case they fall over. In fact, they shouldn’t be allowed to do stupid things like walk up and down stairs, or step off kerbs, or climb up ladders. It makes for a ‘health and safety’ culture, in which more or less everything is perceived as dangerous. Although, as we now know, smoking is the single most dangerous thing anyone can do.

But also preventative medicine must result in the decline of old-fashioned after-the-fact-reactive medicine. After all, once you’ve prevented everyone from smoking, and smoking is the cause of every malady, then there is no further need for doctors or hospitals or ambulances. Because it’s all been prevented, you see. Once people have been prevented from getting cancer and malaria and broken legs, there’s simply no longer any need for the kind of doctor who arrives in an emergency, and ties a splint around the broken leg, because there won’t be any broken legs any more. So the traditional medical profession will wither away. And the hospitals will close, and the emergency services. Because they will no longer be needed once everything has been prevented.

But even if old-fashioned reactive medicine – doctors, hospitals, ambulances, etc – remains largely in place at present, it is essentially in rivalry with preventative medicine. You either prevent disease from happening, or you cure it once it’s happened. You either make your ship unsinkable, or you provide it with lifeboats. It makes no sense to do both. And you can’t afford to do both anyway. And so preventative medicine must be taking funds from traditional medicine. If your local hospital has just closed down, it must in part be because the money has been spent on antismoking measures, or rubber leggings.

Preventative medicine means the end of traditional medicine. It necessarily entails the closure of hospitals and emergency services. And it also necessarily entails increasingly intrusive restrictions on what people can and can’t do. It makes for a sort of prison world. And a prison in which people only have themselves to blame if they ever get ill.

Add to that the fact that preventative measures like smoking bans destroy communities, fragment society, bankrupt pubs, undermine trust, and depress the economy, and you get an idea of just horribly bad preventative medicine really is.

Preventative medicine, in short, is the death of medicine. And the death of pretty well everything else as well.

It’s not that prevention is better than cure. It’s that prevention is much, much, much worse than cure. It may have looked like an attractive idea, but it was actually a terrible, terrible idea.

And so we are all going to have to go back to the old-fashioned reactive medicine, with doctors and ambulances waiting until people break their legs, or catch malaria, and not trying to prevent them from doing so in the first place, and in the process imposing crushing and inhuman and mostly ineffective controls on everyone. We can’t afford not to.

Anyway, Happy Easter. And here’s Lana Del Rey, smoking cigarettes (or did in the first video I tried):

About Frank Davis

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

21 Responses to Prevention Is Worse Than Cure

  1. junican says:

    Once upon a time, there was a case to be made for nationalising coal production and water production and such. And then there came a time when there was a case to be made for de-nationalising these industries. Does anyone know which worked best? What we seem to have seen is the removal of Government Dictat as the OWNER and its replacement by REGULATION. Is there any difference?
    It is becoming very clear that regulation by ‘experts’ is very negative. By its nature, regulation by experts is defensive – the experts have to defend themselves. Thus is born the extremely costly regulation of minutiae.

    The enjoyment of tobacco has been in decline for some time, without interference from Zealots. Now that Zealots are interfering, smoking is on the increase.

    Individual doctors are as powerless as individual citizens,

  2. Rose says:

    The move to preventative medicine and the health and safety culture is probably more a reaction to the threat of large organisations being sued, which appears to have started years ago in America.
    If they can prevent every single situation in which a person can be hurt, if only theoretically, then they can not be blamed.

    After the Ban, I wondered how on earth we got to this stage and one name stood out.

    Investigations: Banzhaf’s Bandits – 1970

    “Once, ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) was John Banzhaf’s only pressure group. Now he has CAP, PUMP, LASH, TUBE and SOUP. Startled industries and badgered regulatory agencies are suddenly painfully aware that Banzhaf’s Bandits are abroad in Washington.

    John F. Banzhaf III, 29, is the lawyer who staggered the tobacco and television industries with his successful demand that TV stations give free time for antismoking messages. To his amazement, the Federal Communications Commission responded to his “citizen’s complaint,” an action later upheld in the courts.”
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904206,00.html

    John Banzhaf: In His Own Litigious Words

    “The notorious professor has apparently reached the conclusion that any profitable industry — excluding the litigation business, of course — must be bled dry. Fast food is his current target. And he has vowed to slay this monster in the name of “public health.”

    In his relentless quest to turn America into a nation of Kate Moss doppelgangers, Banzhaf has fallen head over heels in love with any and every lawsuit that demonizes those who dare to feed us. Fortunately, you don’t have to take our word for it; he’s said so himself:

    “We’re going to sue them and sue them and sue them.”

    — CBS, “CBS Sunday Morning” 8/11/02.

    “You could sue practically anybody under this theory. If this lawsuit gets anywhere, it’ll make the asbestos [litigation] look like a walk in the park.”

    — National Law Journal 12/9/02.

    “Somewhere there is going to be a judge and a jury that will buy this, and once we get the first verdict, as we did with tobacco, it will open the floodgates.”

    — New York Daily News 1/22/03.

    “The very fact that lawyers are going to be making money out of [suing restaurants] is exactly what we’re counting on, ’cause that’s what made it with tobacco.”

    — CNBC, “Capital Report” 5/27/03.

    “We’re also now looking at going after schools and school boards and even school board members.”

    — National Public Radio, “Talk of the Nation” 8/8/03.

    “One of the most effective ways to get social change is to sue people.”

    — Detroit News 12/14/03.

    “We must remember that the anti-tobacco movement did not just sue the tobacco companies. We sued lots of people.”

    — The Washington Times 9/20/04.”
    http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/legal_reform/john_banzha.html

    1967

    “A demonstration of the value of conflict and surprise in capturing headlines occurred when a young lawyer, Joseph F. Banzhaf, 111, who was an invitee to the Conference, brought a fiery attack on health agencies into the pressroom on the morning before he delivered it in one of the work groups.

    Reporters and TV cameramen were fascinated as he flailed at the health agencies and the National Interagency Council. Banzhaf had been the plaintiff whose letter to the Federal Communications Commission became the occasion for the ruling that the fairness doctrine be extended to advertising,

    He attacked the health agencies because they did not follow his advice to go to court on behalf of the FCC.
    Health groups argued that their business was education, research, service to patients, not law suits; but the independent young lawyer casting his adjectival rocks at the large health agencies had the headlines that day”.
    – Page 3
    http: //tobaccodocuments.org/atc/60272395.html

    1975

    “Banzhaf of ASH helped himself to the newsroom to denounce ACS and other voluntary health organizations for not prohibiting smoking among their own staffs.
    Banzhaf disclosed he’s filed a six-point petition for rule-making at Federal Trade Commission:
    1. Prohibit attractive people in cigarette ads;
    2. Require relative ‘tar’-nicotine disclosure in brand ads;
    3. Prohibit cigarette coupons and premiums;
    4. Ban cigarette billboards;
    5. Require ads to state the ‘difficulties of smoking cessation’;
    6.Require ads to state a warning about danger to nonsmokers.
    http: //legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kub2aa00/pdf

    1983
    John Banzhaf, the head of ASH, urged the antismoking movement to engage the industry in an “economic battle”.
    The tactics suggested by Banzhaf included seeking higher taxes and higher medical billings for smokers, and encouraging increased litigation against tobacco companies by victims of smoking related fires and “smoking-asbestos diseases”.
    http: //www2.tobaccodocuments.org/product_design/87779408-9413.html

    It’s entirely possible that those No Smoking signs in Blackpool’s parks, rather than solely being a righteous attack on some members of the public, is more about protecting Blackpool Council from accusations that they haven’t been sufficiently thorough in protecting non smokers on public property.

    Though I’m sure a great many non smokers would gladly sign a waiver to live as we once did.

    • nisakiman says:

      Looking at that little résumé Rose, I would think that Banzhaf has single-handedly cost the world economy trillions and consigned tens of millions of people to misery by way of unemployment, social exclusion and paranoia.

      It never ceases to amaze me how a single person can cause so much damage. History is littered with such people.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Rose it seems to me the problem lies where no proof is now given the status as positive proof in a court of law. This is where epidemiology has been allowed to flourish and is the basis for so many lawsuits its end as a science would cripple them in one single blow!

      As Frank points out they have no proof of disease causation with tobacco at all. Its epidemiology that is to blame for such successful laws suits in court. Judge Nimo as Junican points out held the Nazis to the fire for proof and they could not provide any real proof just their normal risk analysis junk epidemiology.

      The courts actually set a low standard for proof with these junk studies of 2.0 rr!
      I am a hard line sale,if you dont have end point proof to disease causation its EPIC FAIL for the Nazis…………..

      The only true answer here is for science and the courts to get back to requiring science and lawyers to have proof positive before any actions can be taken for regulation or laws or lawsuits………….

      When I point this out in comments people are astounded especially where the D.C. Court of Gladys Kessler in the RICO suit has ordered the Tobacco Companies to make statements the nazis have created to say by force of lawsuit! There is no proof and they know it! Yet as hitler would have done they are forced to admit things that are not proven!

      To be convicted on basically here say evidence is beyond anyones definition of justice!

      Yet thats exactly what has been going on for decades in nearly every walk of life!
      How do we correct this,well since Dr Enstrom is in Federal Court now exposing the junk science and its political connections we may just see justice served in the end.

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    Its a funny thing preventative medicene. When I was stationed at NRMC Jax Hospital I had occassion to work with the preventative medicine docs. The view then was prevention was detecting problems as they arose before they became a big full blown problem. AKA the yearly physical………..chest xray,heart rate,reflexes etc……….. Today Prevention is a political tool,not a tool looking for early signs of disease but looking for ways to implement socialist policies on the people.

    We must remember it wasnt just the anti-smoking brigade creating this rift,it was also the enviromental nut jobs who forced the the precautionary principle at the UN RIO SUMMIT in 1975 about the same time George Godber was preaching his second hand smoke Junk science idea! It seems the 2 movements have worked side by side on many an occasion if not always.

    We have found over the last few years some of the lead writers for climate science and anti-tobacco stories have written for both groups from time to time.

    But as I dug into the past I came across the fact that the entire medical and science community was reformed and reorganized as the university run club during the turn of the last century. It seems in fact the last great social movement of the progressives took control of all the sciences and created their own systems. Private medical schools were bought up or taken over and formed into the new system of university teachings. It also coinsided with Wilsons League of nations idea which later became the U.N.. Its been a well concieved plan over the last 100 years to basically take over the world with this one world government at the UN. The organization was created to that end long ago along with the economic system we have today too! The Fed in america,the income tax and everything else. Im hitting on rather generalizations without extreme facts here but you get the idea by now of whats going on.

    A free world doesnt require a master,it requires simple freedom in both science and economics.
    Then free political will where the individual is in control of their own destiny,where private property rights are not only guaranteed but upheld as the highest right in the land. The respect of this right guarantees us liberty and freedom of choise. Without it we cannot be free. We are all then serfs to the greater will of a tyranical government gone insane. Now they openly steal our money,they openly criminalize us for existing,they take our children for whatever whim they decry.
    In past societies atrocities like these caused civil war that ultimately led to total populations being wiped out. Shall citizens sit back and continue to accept this hoping the easy money continues to flow or will they stand up and curtail the raping and plundering by the governments as they dictate……..

    Only time will tell when the governments have finally overstepped their bounds upon the people and we rise up!

  4. nisakiman says:

    “Hands off our Packs” just tweeted this link, which I thought might interest.

    Aussie smokers ignore grisly images and still light up

    “Most of the smokers just laughed at any suggestion that a different colour packet would make them want to quit.”

    http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/smokers-ignore-grisly-images-health-lifestyle/1784755/

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      This concurrs that finding:

      World Atlas: More People Smoking Cigarettes than Ever

      There are more people smoking now than ever before, despite health warnings and the rising price of cigarettes. In 1980, 4,453 billion cigarettes went up in smoke, which increased to 6,319 billion in 2010. By 2020, you can expect to find nearly seven billion cigarette ends littering the world.

      Top of the charts in terms of nicotine addiction are Asia and Australia, which is where 57 percent of cigarettes are smoked today.

      These alarming statistics are among many of the intriguing facts laid bare in the ninth edition of Dan Smith’s The State of the World Atlas.

      Elsewhere, the book reports that 19 percent of Americans say they could not feed their families in 2011, despite living in one of the world’s richest countries. Meanwhile, 20 percent of India’s population remains undernourished, despite its Gross National Income rising by 450 percent since 1990.

      An even more shocking revelation is that 2.5 billion people live on less than £1.25 a day, which represents one in three of the global population.

      http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/421066/20130106/population-statistics-state-world-atlas-dan-smith.htm

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        With EPIC FAILURES like this how can tobacco control continue to exist! Its simple they cant! Their only claim to making money is in lying thru their teeth about HEALTH SAVINGS due to their laws! Those are easily DEBUNKED!

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Britain’s hostility could ‘break up the EU’ – says EP president

    http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/3279/britains-hostility-could-break-up-the-eu-says-ep-president

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Schulz says, ‘Nation States voluntarily have chosen to come together to pool sovereignty.’ Well, the British people have never been given the opportunity to decide on membership of the EU. I long for the day that the British people are given the opportunity to decide our future, and guess what Mr Schultz, I don’t think you will like the result.
      No name supplied

      Get out of town, Schulz. We don’t want to be in your crooked game, we don’t want the likes of you having any say over how our affairs are run.
      ßevenßillyßausages – Kassel

      Our hostility has b****r all to do with the failings of the EU. The latest ‘legalised theft’ in Cyprus should tell the entire planet why we would want no part of their mafia style rule. Who on earth would want to bow down to an organisation that has so many similarities to the one that grew in the 1930s under a certain Mr A Hitler?
      “Any attempt by the UK government to repatriate powers to Westminster is likely to be a drawn out and cumbersome negotiation,” said Schulz. So, we simply pull out altogether and leave the EU SSTitanic once and for all.
      It is of no use to us and at the end of the day, Barroso, Van Rompuy, Schutz etc only want this country for it’s wealth. Out, out, out.
      Phil Johnson – A once proud England

      Sounds to me like Schulz is finally getting it. Never mind your political pals, think only of the important people – those that your idealogical reasons are to the detriment of.
      Anonymous

      We and indeed many people in Europe have never been asked if we wanted this. You are undemocratic,corrupt and self serving the lot of you. We don’t wish to renegotiate anything with the EU.
      We want a referendum and then you will get the answer of the British people and that will be ‘out’. We can repeal the 1872 European Community Act and it is done. Simple, no negotiation or any other tricks from you lot.
      John – York

      Schulz is very far from getting it. He still thinks the creation of the EU has actually done some good; he still thinks that countries have no legitimate interest.
      Mark in Frankfurt

      “Nation states voluntarily have chosen to come together to pool sovereignty.” And there is the very basis of the problem, the British people were never asked if they wanted this. And the vast majority don’t.
      The EU is seen as an occupying power in the UK and will soon be ejected either by democratic means by UKIP or violent means, if democracy is denied much longer.
      The UK signed up to a EEC free trade area in 1975, nothing else. Now the EU is utterly hated by the British people. Deal with it.
      Roger Lovemont – Great Britain

      It’s all about the political elite, not the people. The nations states have not, I repeat, the nation states have not – being the people voluntarily come together. The people have had no choice. The peoples’ ‘elective dictatorship’ decided without their consent. Today, people have said ‘enough is enough’. The people no longer want to be shackled to an old dated fantasy.
      Adi Blake – Stroud, Gloucestershire

      Britain won the war. Who are you anyway?
      Anon

      The sooner we leave, the better.
      Ave

      Bring it on. Let’s bust this anti-democratic crock wide open.
      Dave Peers – London, UK, not EUSSR

      We want a vote, end of.
      Barry Luxton – Rochester

      I see above in the related content page a link to “The EU: Still united in diversity” or “a celebration of the europeanunion and its successes”. Honestly the eurozone’s lack of realism would be hilarious if it was not so fanatical.
      You Sir are an unelected representative, leading an autocratic group of socialists who steal from their own citizens’ coffers to fund a dangerous experiment. You cannot let one leave because then all would and the economic consequences for those who signed up for the euro would be drastic. Long live freedom, long, live democracy and down with the barbarian bureaucrats. Let us out or there will be trouble ahead.
      A Democrat – UK

      Who says anything about a repatriation of powers? We want to leave altogether!.
      a. gilbert – Kettering

      What about the EU’s hostility to Britain? We want our country back.
      Andrew – Lancashire, UK

      What a sad set of comments.
      Anon

      So Europe will break up without Britain. That’s a new one from Schultz. I must have mis-read it. He must mean Europe will eventually break up if we stop funding it.
      Anon – UK

      The EU is a bureaucratic, bloated, discredited organisation that doesn’t even abide by its own stated principles and guidelines – and whose overpaid officials ride around Brussels in chauffered limousines.
      How on earth did a country like Cyprus even gain admission to the EU? In a recently released report by the British House of Lords on EU enlargement, it was stated that Cyprus should never have been admitted to the EU because of its ongoing, unresolved dispute with Turkey over the northern half of the island.
      Yet, inexplicably, Cyprus was admitted in 2004. Now look at what’s happened in Cyprus. A warning for all.
      Anon – St. Louis, Missouri, USA

      Being in the EU has been throughly detrimental to Britain. Leaving would be like Independence Day. Relief.
      Fred – England

      My father and my uncle served on the front line in World War One and were lucky to survive, they then went on to serve in supporting roles in World War Two. Tens of thousands of British people died in both of those conflicts they served to prevent our country from being governed by an undemocratic and corrupt regieme in Berlin.
      A majority of ordinary people in this country do not wish to be governed by a corrupt and undemocratic regieme in Brussels. For our politicians to hand over control to a foreign regime without allowing the British people to have a say in the matter is wrong and is a grave insult to all those who died, and although I am retired if an anti-EU action group were to be formed to take action against those traitors who wish to take our democratic rights away then I would be happy to take up arms again.
      Furthermore we do not want our hard earned taxes to be used to support a corrupt and undemocratic regieme, nor do we want the dross of Europe landing on our shores.
      So if David Cameron’s agenda threatens the downfall of the EU then well done but I suspect that the lack of financial stability in the eurozone and the corruption within, will bring the EU down long before Cameron does. At least I hope so.
      EU leaders shows all the hallmarks of dedicated ranting communist dictators and I want nothing to do with Eurocrats.
      Lt. Col. M. S. Hill

      The only people in the UK that voted to be in the ‘Common Market’ were those born before 1957, and those that were 18 years old or over when the referendum was taken. That means that only people over their mid 50s have had any say in the matter.
      What about the rest of us? Do we not get any say?
      In a couple of decades or so everyone who voted for the madness that is the EU will most likely be dead. Then there will be nobody in the UK who had voted to be in the Common Market. Democracy?
      Terence

      Bring on the UK’s independence day. The day we the people finally get to have a vote on whether we want to be stuck in this edifice we never had the chance to vote on before. I predict a resounding ‘out’, and a massive countrywide party afterwards. Can’t come soon enough for me.
      Gary Shaw – England

      Break up the EU? That’s the best news I’ve had in 30 years.
      Mike Symons – Salisbury, UK

      It is not the UK, the problem is the EU and is about time a referendum is called across Europe – to see if we want these politician sucking us dry. Uncontrolled budgets, a bureaucracy of biblical proportion, monumental incompetence. I want out of the EU. I do not want to be part of this mess. I am Italian. I’m not European and never will be.
      loris – Milano, Italy

      Sounds like Schulz and his pals at the EU are running scared. This kind of talk will not deter the British people from voting how they feel fit. Shameful scaremongering from a jumped up official at the ‘EU Boys Club’.
      We Want Our Country Back – UK

      I’m with Schulz on this one. The better approach of the UK would be to try and reach a consensus or polite negociations without threatening others first to give into unreasonable, idealogical demands spun to the people of the UK as a truth.
      I’m not old enough to have even been alive for the membership of the economic community and that doesn’t bother me, I want to see the UK as a strong member within the EU trying to join the Franco-German group and open the way for Spain, Italy and Poland to be part of it.
      Northerner – Northern England

      Herr Schulz seems not to understand that to many Britons, a break-up of the EU would be preferable to the UK simply leaving the organisation.
      J. Tattersall – UK

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    ohn Davidson
    http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/bloomberg_6000_new_bars_and_re.html
    Bloomberg: 6,000 new bars and restaurants in NYC since 2003 smoking ban
    http://www.silive.com
    “Our Administration has never been afraid to take bold steps to improve the quality of life in New York City,” the mayor said.

  7. smokingscot says:

    Congratulations on flicking through the half million mark Frank.

  8. smokingscot says:

    Congratulations on passing half million visits Frank!!!!!!!

  9. melinoerealm says:

    Peculiar that it’s always the socialists (“democrats”, “labour” etc.) that push that particular hybris. And peculiar that something so trivial as smoking, ranks so high in their agenda despite the very serious social problems of today. And peculiar it’s being pushed in many countries at the same time, in exactly the same manner, with exactly the same “complaints”, and with exactly the same pseudolegislation….
    Are they deliberately attempting to promote false flags and cause meaningless division among citizens? And if so, why?

    “Since the Democratic Party came into power, there has been a strong tendency for the Japanese government to place emphasis on anti-smoking measures. The reason being that Yoko Komiyama, one of the most anti-smoking members of parliament, was elected Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare. Admittedly, smoking restrictions are being implemented worldwide on a daily basis and there is concrete scientific evidence to suggests smoking is hazardous to one’s health. However it is peculiar is that smoking should rank so highly among the numerous social problems that await resolve.”

    http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/03/30/have-japans-anti-smoking-laws-gone-too-far-smokers-begin-to-feel-the-pressure/

    • jaxthefirst says:

      I agree MeR. I’m old enough to have witnessed the anti-smoking movement from its first small beginnings to today’s full-blown and, sometimes these days, laughable hysteria. And my question has always been: “What is it about smoking that’s so darned scary for these people? Why smoking, of all things?” Because, when you think about all the other things that world politicians and powerful lobby groups could and should be directing their attention urgently towards – the global economy, terrorism, warfare, poverty, lack of sanitation, diminishing energy sources, diminishing food supplies, overpopulation – smoking is really quite a minor item on the agenda. Or at least it should be. So why isn’t it? Why the big – indeed, HUGE – deal about it? And, like you, I have often watched, open-mouthed, as countries which definitely have bigger and more urgent problems that we in the West have, have fiddle-fart-a*sed around with some meaningless smoking ban whilst all around them their populations are either dying from perfectly curable diseases, half-starving to death, drinking vile contaminated water or being blown to bits in some dispute.

      And I’ve come to think that it’s the influence of western do-gooders, under the direction of even more powerful people (the likes of the Bill Gates Foundation and the WHO etc) which has shot what is in truth a relatively unimportant item to the top of the priority list. But again, the question is: “Why?” And it occurs to me that maybe it’s because there is something so damned GOOD about smoking that these people are terrified that if they reduce the number of people smoking in the West, but allow those elsewhere to continue, then quite simply they’ll get overtaken. Maybe it’s the beneficial effect on people’s mental capacities and creativity which they’re scared of (an Africa full of bright, inventive people would easily economically outrun a West full of dumbed-down, mindless, non-smoking drones), maybe it’s because smokers are more curious and positive about life (an Asia full of genuine scientists and can-do businessmen would make faster and further progress in all areas of life than a West full of politically-directed pseudo-scientists and terrified risk-averse enterprises), or maybe it’s because – shock! horror! – far from being the root of virtually all diseases known to man, smoking may actually be a major factor in preventing many of them – so all countries have to be frog-marched into anti-smokism before too many years elapse and all those non-smoking populations in the West start to see all those still-smoking populations elsewhere living for longer, and with a lower incidence of so-called smoking-related illnesses, than they do. It could just be a race against time to prevent the truth, as it so often does, from unavoidably revealing itself.

      I really don’t know for certain, but one thing is for sure. There’s something about smoking – far and away above any of the other “naughty” activities which people indulge in, such as drinking alcohol, or recreational drug use, or consuming salt, or sugar, or rich foods – which scares the pants of the powers-that-be. That’s why it has to be stopped – come Hell or high water – over and above any of the other pressing problems confronting so many non-western nations. And it has to be done right now.

  10. waltc says:

    I’ve always half thought that smoking was just the toe-in-the-water, the test case for the social engineers to see what they could accomplish in manipulating populations through their relatively new toy of post-war propaganda and expanded media. They could have chosen anything but smoking already had a vague history as a Sin (it’s always easiest to revive an existing prejudice) and is a clearly visible activity. ( You may not know offhand who drinks, eats fries, worships Baal, or reads The National Review, but you can spot and therefore target a smoker. Easy mark.) But another key reason smoking was chosen was that a handful of insane smokephobes were in key positions at the US EPA and pushed their personal agenda to the fore at a time when governments everywhere were feeling the pinch of “rising health care costs.” A neat nexus. I’ve noted too that anti-tobacco only became a major movement just as the cold war presumably ended and there was no other official entity to fill the necessary Minute of Hate.

    In any case, we do know that the blueprint of the anti-smoking movement is now the blueprint for all engineering projects, most of which seek to turn us all into obedient cells of a collective.

    As for the success of the engineering, considering how many people now claim to loathe the smell of cigarettes as a sign of their own gentility, compare to this 1950 US survey that showed the vast majority of nonsmokers loved the smell… http://smokingsides.com/docs/whysmoke.html

  11. lleweton says:

    ‘If your local hospital has just closed down, it must in part be because the money has been spent on antismoking measures, or rubber leggings’ – I love it.

  12. Parmenion says:

    Medicine was, and should, be all about cure.
    This is one of the problems facing the regulation of e-cigs. Should they be classed as a medicinal product (as Big Pharma would like), tobacco product, or simply a consumer product?
    Do e-cigs actually cure anything?
    A telling outcome came in the Tartu Administrative Court (Estonia), when it ruled in March 2013 that e-cigarettes are not medicinal products since they are comparable to tobacco cigarettes in that they satisfy nicotine addiction rather than cure it.

  13. Greg Burrows says:

    Good old Dr Enstrom fighting for the truth a man to be admired, not many people would fight when so many people are kicking him, having looked at the court case that Harley rider mentioned, shows just how nasty these people are in their goal to destroy a person of integrity, Dr Enstrom must win or all hope is lost in America, I hope the trashing of his and Dr Kabat’s study into ETS will also come back into public recognition.
    Here is the complaint laid against the UCLA by Dr Enstrom.
    http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/41bead8455fb5b5a0f7415a3b970a8a0.pdf?direct

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.