Playing With Fire

Following on from my last post, the way I see it is that the War on Smokers is a kind of low-key civil war in which one bunch of people (antismokers) is to trying to get another bunch of people (smokers) to quit smoking. And this sort of civil war isn’t sustainable for very long, because it brings deepening social division and accompanying economic stagnation. It’s not a dynamic, vibrant society that is at war with itself. It is instead a society that is deeply conflicted. And since the war is largely being conducted using tax revenues from the same declining, war-torn society, these revenues are sooner or later bound to dry up. And at that point, the war must come to an end. So I see this sort of civil war as self-limiting.

Much the same could have been said of Prohibition in the USA in the 1920s. That was also one bunch of people trying to get another bunch of people to quit doing something (drink alcohol). And eventually that attempt was also abandoned.

What’s open to question are the driving forces behind these wars. And the way that I see that is that there is a combination of puritanism and eugenic social engineering that’s driving it. It’s a form of idealism, in which antismoking zealots believe that the world would be a better place if people didn’t smoke, and didn’t drink, and didn’t do all sorts of other things too. It’s an essentially moral crusade, largely led by senior doctors who seem to have taken over from the churches is defining morality.

Other players in these wars – like the pharma industry – seem to me to have joined in belatedly and purely opportunistically in order to make a few bucks. If Big Pharma is in favour of smoking bans (and e-cig bans) it’s because it wants to sell NRT products to smokers who are being forced to quit smoking. It’s not because it’s high-minded.

Governments mostly seem to me to have given way to high pressure lobbying from senior doctors, NGOs, and pharma companies. Most governments haven’t historically ever been antismoking, if only because tobacco provides them with big tax revenues.

That’s how I see it, and I don’t claim to have any special inside knowledge.

Others see it a bit differently. Nightlight regards the politicians in government as having been bought by Big Pharma.

It’s the money, in the case of smoking the pharma money flowing under and above the table, that buys the laws and regulations, not the little diversionary puppet show put up by the advocacy groups and politicians for the oversized children making up the increasing fraction of the electorate. The crooks walking over us daily are all bought off and are merely doing what the guys paying them want them to do. Nobody is duped but us.

Smoking Scot said that the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was the main culprit:

Frank’s given a broad overview that I agree with.

Unfortunately he seems to have overlooked the practical effects of the FCTC treaty. That OBLIGES all governments, that sign it into law, to avoid any contact with those in the tobacco industry.

Britain has done that (the US has not, though they are a signatory to the treaty) and this is why “they” make such a fuss whenever any MP meets anyone from the tobacco industry – even informally. And scream blue murder if they dare accept free tickets to a flower show.

Kin_free added:

I agree with Nightlight’s comment in all but the oversimplification of the motivation of politicians. Not all politicians are corrupt or only motivated by money. I’m sure that many politicians DO want to make a difference to society for the good, it is just that many of them have been deceived, pressurised and coerced by anti-smoker nutters and the alleged ‘overwhelming evidence’ – which is nothing of the sort. We must remember that politicians, in general, are no more than laymen who have little expertise in medical science etc. and rely on advice from ‘experts’, senior civil servants etc.

I set out these different views for discussion. They all seem to be valid. And I’m as interested as anyone to get to the bottom of it all.

But I’d go back to what I wrote at the top, and repeat that – however the War on Smokers got started, and whoever is driving it – we now have a low-level global civil conflict as a consequence of all the smoking bans that have been introduced. We are seeing societies gradually dividing into the parties of the smokers and the parties of the antismokers. And this is a division which is, in my view, set to deepen and intensify.

Which brings me to a further remark by Nightlight:

If you want a policies and regulations to change, you got to buy the current crooks the other way, or put in your crooks. Either way, to get there, you need millions righteously enraged folks behind you.

As I see it, as social divisions deepen, and acrimony rises, smokers actually are going to become enraged in ways they have yet to. Particularly when they’re treated like Pavlov dogs:

Government hopes to ‘provoke disgust’ with £3m anti-smoking push

“The campaign launches on 30 December and centres around a TV ad, created by Dare, showing how smoking “dirties the blood” that then travels around the body affecting the organs, which are shown in a dark close-up.”

“PHE marketing director Sheila Mitchell told Marketing Week there is a “fine line” between achieving cut-through and generating complaints: “This is not a ‘return to shock advertising’ [as we know people said of last year’s campaign], because we know that can be a turn off for people.

Instead we want to provoke disgust, a kind of Pavlovian repulse trigger in people.”

These fools are playing with fire. And, the way they’re going, it’s all going to blow up in their faces. If they don’t let up, the low-grade civil war will become a high-grade civil war.

About Frank Davis

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

74 Responses to Playing With Fire

  1. Marie says:

    “Instead we want to provoke disgust, a kind of Pavlovian repulse trigger in people.”

    For me this is pure evil! And it already works!

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank you will find many of the Pharma companies like the Wellman group and RWJF were all prohibitionists back in the early 1900’s and left large endowments to sustain their owners hatred for decades and generations to come. Without these endowments left back during the height of the first bans and prohibition going on the whole mess would likely not be here back again today!

    Even the ACS,ALA,AHA and so many others are the bastard children of prohibitionists from a by-gone era………..Rockefellor

    Its Gates and Bloomberg who have been hand picked to get Billionaires around the globe to leave much of their wealth to keep these groups funded for generations to come as they lost so much in the Crash that many were simply wiped out!

    To end the scourge this is where the fight truly is BANKRUPTING THESE GROUPS before they go into HYBERNATION MODE again and try to become Saintly orginizations in the public eye over 2-3 generations and then strike with a whole new approach…….

    This is the true enemy!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Lets also remember it was likely these groups who got the UN put into place and its simply to easy to read the UN CHARTER and see it! 1984 was written into the charter under ultimate world control…… war was just a gimmickal threat to get everyone on board. It must be abolished for freedom to survive.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think that something’s going to have to be done about these foundations.

      What if the Nazis had set up a foundation devoted to spreading antisemitism, homophobia, and gas-assisted euthanasia? I would imagine that they would have been closed down long ago.

      Instead we have foundations that drive equally fascistic antismoking, anti-alcohol, and anti-obesity campaigns. And nobody bats an eyelid.

      • Klaus K says:

        I think it is important to see the big picture: Behind the whole issue of public health there is money. Big Pharma money – not just from the pharma companies themselves, but from the big owners of these companies, i.e. the foundations of Bloomberg, Gates, Rockefeller and the RW Johnson Foundation, who belongs to the family that owns the companies around Johnson & Johnson, the owner of the Nicorette-license.

        The medical establishment and the public health establishment are both sitting in Big Pharma’s pockets, and today all patient groups, ngo’s (local, national and global) and many universities are merely pharma front groups, all more or less controlled by money from Big Pharma.
        Furthermore, not just the medical litterature but also the mainstream news media are controlled by the pharma money – not only because of media ownership, but also because Big Pharma is the most wealthy advertiser. Thus pharma money controls the “truth” in western societies today. Nothing will get published against their interests, because all media and academic discourse is “following” the pharma money.

        Dr. Peter Rost, ex-CEO of the pharma giant Pfizer has explained how it works – i.e. how the pharma money rules the medical establishment:

        The pharma industry have not just “joined in belatedly and purely opportunistically in order to make a few bucks,” as Frank suggests. That is wrong, Frank. First, the bucks are not “few” – second, the pharma cartel have been enganged in a take-over of all western health administrations for many decades – third, the cartel is fighting to grab the nicotine (and soon other “genussmittel”, like alcohol, sugar, salt, fat) with the help from governments, the EU-commission and the UN (WHO).

        Please note the quote from Dr. Philippe Even, former leader of the Necker Institute in Paris: “The pharmaceutical industry is the most lucrative, the most cynical and the least ethical of all the industries,” he said. “It is like an octopus with tentacles that has infiltrated all the decision making bodies, world health organisations, governments, parliaments, high administrations in health and hospitals and the medical profession. It has done this with the connivance, and occasionally the corruption of the medical profession. I am not just talking about medicines but the whole of medicine. It is the pharmaceutical industry that now outlines the entire medical landscape in our country.”

        Since year 2000 western societies have changed from democracies to corporate states where governments have merged with the pharma cartel on all levels: National, EU and global (UN) level. It is like in Italy 1925 and Germany 1933. The global corporate pharma state. That’s why no governing politicians want to amend the smoking bans – thats why almost everything about health in the media is ban promotion and disease mongering – and that’s why the EU won’t allow the E-cigarette: All public bodies have an obligation to protect the laws that serve their pharma partner’s best interests.
        After all, Big Pharma paid many of the grants and built much of the evidence that made the smoking bans & the ever rising cigarette taxes possible. See these two docs from the RW Johnson Foundation:

        Big Pharma’s agenda is called “health” – but the intent is opposite: More disease and therefore: more drugs. Including Nicorette. Alcohol is next …

        For a historical overview on how the take-over has developed in th US, see “The Truth About the Rockefeller Drug Empire: The Drug Story”:

        For another historical overview on Europe, see Dr. Mattias Rath:

        • Frank Davis says:

          Since year 2000 western societies have changed from democracies to corporate states where governments have merged with the pharma cartel on all levels: National, EU and global (UN) level. It is like in Italy 1925 and Germany 1933. The global corporate pharma state.

          I’m sure Big Pharma is pretty big. But that big? I seem to remember reading that it was about 10 times bigger than Big Tobacco. And there are also lots of other Big companies around, like Big Oil. Why pin everything on Big Pharma?

          thats why almost everything about health in the media is ban promotion and disease mongering

          Is disease-mongering ever going to be a workable corporate strategy? I can see that making people sick so that they buy medicines that don’t work will boost profits in the short term, but in the longer term this can only make life harder for everyone, and crash the economy, at which point nobody will have any money to buy the medicines that don’t work.

        • Klaus K says:

          Frank, it is not just a matter of size. Big Oil has not infiltrated governments, media & the public sector. Big Oil does not own the medical litterature and thereby define the “truth” in all health matters. What we must realise is that the whole western society has changed to fit the pharma agenda & the pharma way of thinking. Big Oil and Big Tobacco belong to the old world & the old way of thinking – when societies were free. Well, they are not anymore – a merge between governments and big pharma has happened in the west. And no western government today will make laws that go against their pharma partner’s interests. All laws fit the new pharma agenda.
          The anti-smoking laws are just one area. Others are the concept of “health” and especielly “public health”, i.e. health-epidemiology (which pharma controls through the journals), the ever-rising taxes on unhealthy goods, the attacks on the old natural “genussmittel” (alc, sugar, tobacco, salt & fat), children on drugs, unhappy people on antidepressants, more & more vaccines, more & more “prevention”, more & more drugs.
          And importantly: The concept that you – the citizen – is 100% responsible for any disease you may have. Not the government, not big pharma, not the medical establihment, not the environment, not pollution from industries (where big pharma is the worst polluter), not any work-related risk-factors, not genetics, not “chance” – just you … ! If you get sick, it is 100% your own fault, because your lifestyle is not “healthy”. That is the corporate pharma state’s agenda. You own your life to the state. The same as in pre-war Italy and in nazi-Germany.
          Please read Snowdon – this is the next step. The pharma state is at endless war against its own citizens:

          I also urge you to read the two last links I posted earlier. The pharma agenda has been developing thogh many decades. Big Pharma is not a free-market industry. It’s a monopoly industry – every drug is its own little “monopoly” because of the patent laws. The human body is Big Pharma’s monopoly marketplace. Remember also that nearly all Big Pharma’s income is paid by taxpayers. Unlike all other industries, to Big Pharma the government is the only customer. Thus they will make more money in a real dictatorship – and that’s why they are pushing for a government-pharma dictatorship with huge lobbying and obscene grantgiving.

        • Klaus K says:

          Is disease-mongering ever going to be a workable corporate strategy? I can see that making people sick so that they buy medicines that don’t work will boost profits in the short term, but in the longer term this can only make life harder for everyone, and crash the economy, at which point nobody will have any money to buy the medicines that don’t work.
          That is true, although it may take many years before the crash happens. Also you must realise, that people can still work when on drugs They are not really sick, they are just “diagnosed” as sick in order to prescribe drugs to them.

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    Damn I thought my vision was going I kept seeing white spots across the screen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • THANK GOD! I thought it was just me! Woke from a nightmare a few minutes ago (involving a cast of thousands,Delia Smith and rubber bands…no don’t ask), had a smoke, made a cuppa and then logged in to read Frank, Leggy et al. THought I had gotten ash on my contacts…

      • Reinhold says:

        Should represent snowflakes, I think. WordPress reminds us: Winter’s here, haha.
        Real snowflakes, however, don’t fall down that way, if I remember correctly.

    • Frank Davis says:

      My fault! I visited another WordPress site last night, and it had snow falling across it. And I thought Why isn’t my blog doing that? And then found out how to enable it.

      Which reminds me that if we’re going to get any snow from the fragmented comet Ison, it will be over the next two weeks.

      So I took a look at what Ison would do if it exploded (left), and found that there was a small chance that a few fragments would strike the Earth on their way out from the sun. If they did, I reckoned it would be between about 29 Dec 2013 and 15 Jan 2014.

  4. Junican says:

    The Civil War is already with us, but it is a war of ideas. In the end, the Tobacco Control Industry cannot win since, if it becomes victorious, it must be a consequence that it destroys itself also. Perhaps that is the real reason behind the war on ecigs – ecigs will hasten the destruction the TCI before the TCI has reached the nirvana of a “tobacco free world”. What it comes down to is that the Zealots want to see the destruction of the the Tobacco Industry, but only in a way which they control. The idea that people might do that without the TCI is upsetting. I mean, from the Zealots’ point of view, where might it all end? If ecigs were to catch on in a really big way, The TCI might well be destroyed long before the tobacco industry.
    That would not do.

  5. Walt says:

    “Pavlovian disgust.” My mind goes to “A Clockwork Orange,” but as Marie says: it works! It may, eventually, burn itself out but how many witches were burned in Salem, how many Jews incinerated in camps, how many blacks hung from trees, Tutsis (or was it Hutus?) sliced in half, Slavs eviscerated, Christians thrown to lions, the “unfit” sterilized before the fever died? And again I think about “morphic resonance”– ocean-hopping notions repeatedly reinforced as the numbers behind them grow. True, it may only take the one little boy pointing at the emperor’s bare-naked butt but he might be run down by a tank in the town square before he finishes the thought.

    Then too as the numbers of smokers dwindles and the unhappy ex’s who were pressured into quitting proportionately grows, the ex’s are less and less likely to join us in fighting for liberty/ equality/ fraternity, having willy-nilly– and insufferably proudly (because they’re told to be proud of it)– joined the other camp. Sorry to be a pessimist but I think this will have to grow spectacularly worse (and I fear that it will) before the fever ever breaks and I doubt I’ll live to see it.

    Finally, don’t forget money as a motive for governments and employers who take on the fiscal burdens of “health care” and can easily be convinced to eliminate anything they’re lobbied by the zealots to believe causes illness. By now, the lore is so hard and so thick and the lies are so tall they’re increasingly hard to topple.

  6. Walt says:

    Further backup (US version) for kin_free’s comments yesterday about politicians.

    Here’s how then-Gov. Mike Huckabee got a ban through the Arkansas legislature: by sliming opponents and silencing opposition:

    Bloomberg called one of his mayoral opponents who favored a relaxation of the ban, the “pro-cancer candidate”

    And this excerpt from a report posted @ CLASH on Glantz’s similar approach:


    In Glantz’s vocabulary, opposition to smoking bans, no matter what the reason = “pushing the tobacco industry’s agenda.” Here’s how he suggests that his troops deal with any such heretical legislators:

    “In each state one or two politicians seem to be taking the lead in pushing the industry’s position (at least publicly).As soon as these politicians start floating trial balloons, they should be attacked publicly. If they can be bloodied, it could well scare the others off. Fear is a great motivator for politicians.”

  7. Bemused says:

    We’ll they have certainly provoked disgust in me. I am disgusted by my Government, I am disgusted by the Tobacco Control Industry, I am disgusted by Big Pharma, I am disgusted by the WHO, I am disgusted by Media whores, I am disgusted by modern Epidemiology.

    Not too many decades ago Single Issue Fanatics, zealots, bigots, the professionally offended and sociopathic egomaniacs would not be given the time of day, in fact they were given short shift and if they did get media attention it was to be ridiculed. Now it appears the only way to get representation or action is to be an offended, loud mouthed, bigoted, dishonest, fanatical zealot.

    The problem of pandering to these people is that every concession is never enough and simply an encouragement for their next irrational thought and demand. This is true whatever the SIFs preferred axe to grind is. Smoking, drinking, food and physical exercise are the current biggies but it does not matter the size of the issue for it to attract media coverage and to be lent Political credence.

    For example according to today’s news (and there is something different every bloody day in Scotland) “the dangerous dogs act” apparently does not go far enough, now the call is for EVERY dog to be licenced, chipped and muzzled in public, I predict this will not be opposed by politicians as first they will assess how much income they can exploit from dog owners and second due to their thin skinned fear of bad publicity and the given fact that the cheap whores in our vicious tabloid press will name and shame them the first time somebody (preferable a disadvantaged, handicapped, minority , ethnic child) gets bitten.

    Sadly we are living in a ” there ought to be a law”, “something should be done” society. Personal responsibility, honesty, integrity and tolerance are rapidly becoming quaint characteristics of a bygone age. Perhaps they can be preserved and reintroduced in a generation or two.

    • @Bemused

      At last someone mentions one of the sources of the madness. As I wrote the other day (either here or at Leggy’s), many of ‘our’ laws come from the UN before being laundered through the EU. This is why we see the same agenda in every country on many issues now affecting our freedom and survival as independent nations, the goal being global governance with no nations and a world of slaves, save the elites.

      Just why smoking is so bad for the globalists is still a bit of a mystery to me. As I wrote a few days ago (here or Leggy’s)… it’s because creating a culture of antismoking increases the range in the divide and conquer arsenal, so successful in destroying societies, or because it increases the IQ (as Frank wrote about a few days ago) when we are being dumbed down by all other means (state ‘education’, media, fluoride, food additives, etc.), or that it keeps people from meeting and talking and planning on how to get rid of the control freaks.

      I certainly see Tobacco Control as a branch of eugenics. I read that Alex Salmond intends Scotland to be “smoke free” within the next two decades. He will be like Hitler on acid to get measures in place to achieve this if he becomes schottischer Führer after next summer’s Indy-pretence referendum.

      • “Implementing tobacco control” by the WHO…

        Just look at the lies, esp. re. social and economic consequences…

        “Present and future generations must be urgently protected from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke.

        “Governments use the tobacco control measures in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke. By implementing these measures, governments reduce the heavy burden of disease and death that is attributable to tobacco use or exposure.”

        In fact, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) “is the first international treaty negotiated under the auspices of WHO. …. It has since become one of the most rapidly and widely embraced treaties in United Nations history.”

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          rapidly and widely embraced treaties in United Nations history.”

          Under threat of sanctions and loss of World Bank and IMF funds if they don’t bend over the barrel and take it up the ass. Go and ask Bulgarian legislators what they were threatened with if they didn’t keep the ban in place. I bet itd make you turn pale white! If we only knew…………..but we can damn sure guess

      • Rose says:

        Just why smoking is so bad for the globalists is still a bit of a mystery to me

        Stewart, could it be that Pharma needed a productive plant outside the food chain to grow vaccines (they had been getting complaints about using food crops)

        Tobacco Plants Grow Huge Quantities of Vaccines in a New Robotic Factory – 2013

        “A team of biologists and engineers have created the first “living foundry” capable of producing 2.5 million units of vaccine in just seven days using genetically altered tobacco plants, tended by robots.”

        “Dr. Vidadi Yusibov, a professor at the Delaware-based Fraunhofer USA Center for Molecular Biology, and Dr. Andre Sharon, a professor at the Center for Manufacturing Innovation at Boston University, led the development of a robotic tobacco farm in Newark, Delaware, that can “grow” vaccines on a massive scale.

        Molecular farming, as this vaccine-production method is known, introduces the genetic information needed to produce a “target” protein into plants.

        “We use tobacco plants because they multiply and maintain our virus vectors very well. In addition, they grow fast yielding, large quantities of biomass in a short period of time,” Yusibov said in a press release.”

        Tobacco plants yield the first vaccine for the dreaded “cruise ship virus” – 2009
        http: //

        Bayer Starts Clinical Phase I Study With Personalized Vaccine From Tobacco Plants – 2010

        “This is the first time that proteins obtained from tobacco plants using magnICON® technology undergo clinical testing. The patient-specific vaccines produced in the pilot plant operated by the Bayer-subsidiary Icon Genetics in Halle, Germany, are intended for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), a type of cancer affecting lymphocytes. The objective of the therapy is to activate the patient’s immune system, enabling the malignant cells to be targeted and destroyed by the body’s own defense system.”
        http: //

        Health Scan: Collagen from tobacco shows great promise – 2010
        “Hebrew University professior has produced a replica of human collagen from tobacco plants – an achievement with great commercial implications.”
        http: //

        Dec 24 2013
        Israeli Biotechnology Company CollPlant, Producing Human Collagen For Tissue Repair, Raises $6 Million

        “The technology behind CollPlant’s collagen was invented by the company’s co-founder Professor Oded Shoseyov, who transfered all five genes responsible for the production of the protein into a transgenic plant. Tobacco was perfect for this job because its genome is well known, it starts a new growing cycle every six weeks and it is not part of the food chain, so the genes cannot escape into the environment.”
        http: //

        Tobacco has even being used to make plastic.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          The last I read over 40,000 drugs are made from tobacco or its diributives………spelling sux

  8. magnetic01 says:

    Frank: “I set out these different views for discussion. They all seem to be valid.”

    I agree wholeheartedly. There were many ecellent comments in the last thread, as in this thread. There are a number of vested interests – some ideological, some financial – that push antismoking toward creating a greater and greater mess.

    I have no doubt that the beginnings of the current crusade (Godber Blueprint) was a continuation of eugenics anti-tobacco. Smokers are viewed as “abnormal”, inferior to nonsmokers and that their reduction/elimination will produce a “better, healthier” society. The crusade involves the same personnel (the medically-aligned – physicians, biologists, pharmacologists, statisticians, and, more recently, behaviorists). It involves the same shallow physicalist/materialist (biological reductionism) framework that produces a perverse, sterile, reductionist definition of health stripped of the art, detail, and humanity of living. It involves the same reliance on flimsy population-level statistics that were first developed by eugenicists with the intent of population control. It involves the same emphasis on “prevention”; prevention is the cornerstone of the eugenics framework. It involves the same primacy of the medical establishment and social-engineering intent where all should be coerced – through punitive laws and regulations – to abide by this superficial, “medicalized” framework, i.e. medical imperialism. It involves the same denormalization and mass propaganda techniques, a constant playing on the primal fear of disease and death, to achieve social-engineering goals.

    It’s not only antismoking. More recently we’ve seen the slide for control to alcohol, drinks, and food using the tobacco “template”. These all represent the behavioral dimension of eugenics – anti-tobacco/alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise – pushed by the same medically-aligned groups. One of the most recent developments is the “EU Lifestyle Policy”: “To this end it recommended the adoption of a ‘regulatory mix’ of cost-effective, population-wide interventions to reduce the impact of the four main NCD-risk factors, namely tobacco use, the harmful use of alcohol, unhealthy diets and lack of physical activity”.

    That’s almost word for word from many of my posts on eugenics over the last few years. So the problem is greater than just antismoking; unbridled antismoking is but one symptom. The problem is the greater eugenics context – physicalism and social engineering – that produces the quest for population control along a handful of superficial issues. Yet the situation is even worse. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a “reference bible” for psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. With each edition, the manual gets larger. With the most recent – DSM5 – there isn’t much left that people can be doing that couldn’t somehow be construed as some “mental disorder” requiring medical intervention and usually with pharmaceutical remediation (i.e., vested financial interest). For example, tobacco use is considered a “mental disorder” – “tobacco use disorder” – and this also allows for the sale of pharmaceutical products. Then there’s the emergence of “Global Health” Institutes within Public Health Departments. It’s the standard, dangerous, deranged belief that medicine covers all of health and that it’s the “right” of the medically-aligned to control the globe. We are [again] witnessing a medical take-over of society; the medical industrial complex gets ever larger. Welcome to the [medical] “therapeutic state”.

    So, in historical context, can the medical establishment get things not only wrong but terribly wrong? Absolutely. Can the medical establishment be corrupt? Absolutely. Can the medical establishment wreak social havoc? Absolutely. For example, employment discrimination and the denial of medical treatment to those who smoke were also seen early last century. The medical establishment is very capable of demonstrating a dangerous, cruel streak that is socially destabilizing. Consider that 1 in 4 – that’s 25% – doctors responding in a recent poll indicated that they provided lesser care to smokers. If it was 1%, it should be sounding alarm bells; 25% is catastrophic. Alarm bells are ringing. But there are few that can hear them or are prepared to highlight the perversity of the trend. To their great shame, the medicos have [again] allowed a bigoted streak to flourish, i.e., institutionalized bigotry, that compromises their primary role of providing medical treatment to the best of their ability and in non-judgmental terms.

  9. magnetic01 says:

    Then there are the vested financial interests. Government is a primary financial beneficiary from the antismoking crusade. In some countries, e.g., Australia, the level of extortionate taxes on tobacco has reached that of mega-robbery. It’s impoverishing and imposing greater stress on those of lower income. Even more disturbing is that there isn’t a shred of criticism from the mainstream. And it’s sucking large amounts of money straight to government coffers, eliminating its flow through the economy. Then there’s the Pharma companies peddling their next-to-useless (NRT) and dangerous (Champix) “smoking cessation” wares. In the antismoking fervor of America early-1800s to WWII there was also opportunism in peddling “quit smoking” wares. For example, see comments (including graphics) by “mag01”:

    This time around the use of the questionable idea of “nicotine addiction” – a throwback to the 1800s – provided large, well-established Pharma companies with the opportunity of mass-scale sales and having the financial ability to directly influence the “crusade”. This time around it’s been the Pharma companies and Pharma-“philanthropy” (e.g., RWJF) that have been the major financers of antismoking zealotry, pumping billions of dollars over the last few decades into the “enterprise” – “cultivation of the market”.

    Which brings us to a third group of the financially interested – antismoking individuals/groups. Given the terrible track record early last century concerning alcohol, immediate prohibition was not an option for the current zealots; the emphasis has been on “coercive measures”. The use of tax as a coercive measure to conformity has been a great boon for antismoking groups. Government has been only too happy to raise tobacco taxes from the constant chanting of antismoking groups; it means more money for government. But antismoking groups figured quite early that it’s also good for them. These groups then lobby government for a cut of the “booty” which keeps them in long-term, monomaniacal, comfortable employment, all at the expense of their victims – smokers. The same template is being applied/contemplated for alcohol and food/drink. First lobby for an increase(s) in taxation, first bleed the victims of money (and then more and more money), which provides a financial cut for lobbyists. Many of these lobbyists also attract obscene levels of funding from Pharma companies. If we look at just the flow of money from smokers/taxpayers to government/Pharma/lobbyists, all inflicted through baseless inflammatory rhetoric presented to the public as scientific and scholarly (appeal to authority), it could properly be described as a racket; it’s a great, monumental, white-collar money-spinning fraud.

    Let’s not under-estimate the effect of inflammatory rhetoric. Politicians being met with a barrage of inflammatory rhetoric such as kill, poison, toxic, death, and being accused of complicity in the “death toll” unless they take drastic action to curb the “tobacco epidemic” can be overwhelming, making it all too easy to see the “merits” of extortionate taxes. But until the 1980s, politicians and the general public could discern moralizing zealotry and its dangers. The Godber Blueprint as an eradication-of-smoking-from-public-view crusade had little interest. We can go back even further. Imagine presenting the “EU Lifestyle Policy” to troops returning from WWII. The presenters would have been tossed in the nearest river. People fought to the death to protect their relatively free societies from tyranny in any form, including those that are promoted in more “benevolent” terms. The idea of “lifestyle regulation” by the medically-aligned would have attracted outrage immediately post-WWII, as it did right up to the 1980s.

    The ideas of freedom and individual autonomy were paramount for relatively free societies. If government wanted to build roads and provide basic services, no problem. But that was where the line was drawn. Government was servant to the people. This is all gone; it’s a terrible loss of insight. I don’t think many in one-time relatively free societies, particularly the younger generations, have any grasp of what made these societies relatively free. And these societies have been easy prey for the dangerous partnering of the medically-aligned and the State – again, where the populace is turned into the property and servants of the State. It’s truly tragic. Eugenics thinkers “reason” in population-level terms. Sociologists that have joined in the crusade also “reason” in group or population-level terms. The idea of individual autonomy is non-existent; eugenicists have an utter contempt for the idea of freedom and individual autonomy. Their idea of the world is a controlled, engineered one in the hope of producing a “better” [physical] herd and where the “markers” used are physical only and based on an explosion of statistical blather. Physicalists view humans in no more than “herd” terms, a little more “complex” than other animals, or training/conditioning rats in a lab. The inflammatory propaganda of the current antismoking crusade is a good example of negative conditioning (producing revulsion/aversion) attempting to produce mass behavior modification. Again, this sort of conduct would have been viewed as repugnant, and rightly so, by most right up to the 1980s.

  10. magnetic01 says:

    A word needs to be said on religious groups. Just one of the many activities proposed in the Godber Blueprint involved making “allies’ of as many groups as possible, e.g., religious, feminist, environmental. There are many religious groups that have bought into the antismoking crusade. To their shame, they have been suckered by “appeal to authority”. Many of these Christian groups are the same that have a long history of antismoking and that bought into the eugenics insanity of early last century, e.g., breakaway Millerite groups such as Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, and the UK export, the Salvation Army. The Vatican has banned smoking in the precinct. Many churches have banned smoking on entire premises. Many “religious” folk spout the standard antismoking rhetoric. I would question the Christian basis of all of these groups. There is much nominal Christianity these days. But it’s not these religious groups that head antismoking. These groups simply lend their weight to the exercise. Antismoking is headed by the medically-aligned that, when lobbying, refer to the full support of religious (and other) groups. It’s a very bizarre situation. In countries that once had a slight leaning toward Christianity, Christianity is also under attack. Christian groups give antismoking support to the medically-aligned, but the medically-aligned have been instrumental in undermining Christianity! And other religions have also been suckered in, e.g., Islam, Judaism.

    • magnetic01 says:

      There is a consideration of, particularly, how many Christian groups have jumped on the antismoking bandwagon in Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger (p.536-559). And that’s from more than 10 years ago. The situation has only deteriorated since. Probably one of the most scathing, slanderous views on smoking I’ve ever encountered comes from a high-profile Adventist group, a so-called “Christian” group:

      You now have to sign up to view the article. So, I’ll provide it in full here:
      What is God’s view of smoking? People addicted to cigarettes are quick to point out that the Bible says nothing about smoking. This is simply not true.
      The Bible is a book of law. The laws, when obeyed, produce great happiness. Biblical laws regulate health, farming, diet, child rearing and marriage. If people would follow these laws, they would live an abundant life. Yet mankind consistently chooses to violate these laws!
      It is true that nowhere in the Bible does God say, “Thou shalt not smoke.” But in the Sixth Commandment, He emphatically states, “Thou shalt not murder” (Exodus 20:13, Jewish Publication Society translation). The question we need to answer is, does smoking harm people?
      Slow Suicide
      The clinical facts have been fully tabulated on smoking. There is no doubt that there exists a direct relationship between smoking and lung cancer. Lung cancer does kill people. Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop warned, “Cigarette smoking is clearly identified as the chief preventable cause of death in our society and the most important public health issue of our time.” A pamphlet issued by the surgeon general’s office stated that smoking “causes more illness and death than all other drugs.” One of the most current U.S. surgeon general’s warnings on a pack of cigarettes states: “Cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide.” Read that warning again! To inhale cigarette smoke is to inhale carbon monoxide! Nobody in a sane state of mind would purposely inhale carbon monoxide.
      To put it simply, smoking is suicide.
      If you smoke or use any other form of tobacco, you are doing so contrary to the serious warnings against such habits. When you smoke, you are wrecking your health. Another of the surgeon general’s warnings on a pack of cigarettes states: “Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health.”
      If you smoke, then you are deliberately subjecting your body to serious physical harm. Here is a list of some of the chemicals found in unfiltered cigarette smoke besides carbon monoxide: hydroquinone, methacrolein, methyl alcohol, methylamine, nickel compounds, pyridine, dimethylamine, endrin, ethylamine, furfural, cadmium, methyl nitrite, ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrogen sulfide, ddt, and nicotine. Spilling these chemicals into a water supply system could carry heavy fines for any business. If you are a smoker, you are seriously polluting your own body, and you will pay a heavy personal penalty.
      Besides lung cancer, you could also be subjecting your body to other life-threatening diseases such as bladder cancer, emphysema, high blood pressure and hardening of the arteries, which can lead to a stroke. From God’s point of view, is there really any difference between pointing a gun to your head and pulling the trigger or lighting a cigarette? No! Pulling the trigger on a gun usually brings death instantly. But smoking also brings death—slow, agonizing death. Both are suicide! Both violate the Sixth Commandment. If you smoke, the most important thing you can do for your health is to quit the poisonous habit immediately.
      It’s Not All About You
      Some argue, As long as my smoking doesn’t harm anyone else, it is okay to continue the habit. But scientists have also proven that the secondary smoke produced by smokers is just as lethal for the non-smoker living in a smoker’s environment.
      According to the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, second-hand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine, three times as much of a certain kind of benozopyrene (a carcinogen), five times as much carbon monoxide (which robs the blood of life-giving oxygen), and 46 times as much ammonia (a potent eye and respiratory-tract irritant) as the smoke that smokers inhale directly from their cigarettes!
      Many countries and many U.S. states have banned smoking in public places for this reason. Smokers not only ruin their own health but the health of others as well. Harming others is another definite violation of the Sixth Commandment.
      Just What Do You Mean … Sin?
      Smoking is also a physical sin! You need to understand why.
      There are many examples in the Bible where Christ showed people that their health problems were caused by sin. In one instance, people brought to Jesus a man lying on a bed. Christ healed him by forgiving his sin. “And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee” (Matthew 9:2). What sins were forgiven? The sins that caused the man to have palsy—physical sin.
      This example contains very important knowledge concerning healing. God has set in motion many physical laws—laws that regulate the functions of our bodies: our health. If we break these laws, we sin and get sick. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4).
      This is a difficult truth for most people to accept: Healing is the forgiveness of physical sin. Matthew 9 continues: “And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house” (verses 3-7).
      If healing is the forgiveness of physical sin, then we must be sure to repent of our physical sins. Christ told the man healed by the pool at Bethesda, “[S]in no more …” (John 5:14).
      If we do harmful things to our bodies like eating improper foods, or even too much of the right kinds of foods (gluttony), we sin against our bodies, and a penalty is exacted. The penalty is sickness! In some cases, the penalty is only temporary—but in other cases, it can mean permanent injury or death.
      Smoking and other uses of tobacco have been proven to be of definite harm to the body. Smoking will cause permanent damage to your lungs, which God designed and created to give you life-giving oxygen. Jesus Christ was beaten with many stripes so we could be healed of sickness (Isaiah 53:5; 1 Peter 2:24). How can we as Christians justify smoking and then expect Christ to heal us of the illnesses related to smoking? Smoking shows great disrespect for Christ’s sacrifice. If Jesus Christ was willing to be beaten with many stripes so we can be healed, then we should do everything possible to remain in good health! To do otherwise is sin!
      What to Do With Your Body
      Let’s go one step further. Why did God create our bodies? Paul gives us the answer: “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy [Spirit] which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). God created our bodies to house His Holy Spirit. God created us physical human beings so that we can grow in His own character (Matthew 5:48). Is there any justification to defile God’s temple with a destructive habit like smoking? Does the use of tobacco glorify God? Does smoking please God, honor God or serve God’s purpose?
      Paul also instructed the Corinthians, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). We should work hard to maintain good health so that God’s Spirit can work effectively in us.
      Smoking also harms the smoker because it reinforces weak character traits. In other words, smoking is also a spiritual sin. In the Tenth Commandment, God commands, “Thou shalt not covet …” (Exodus 20:17). The question we need to answer here is, is smoking lust?
      Regarding the use of tobacco, Herbert W. Armstrong wrote in his autobiography: “I had learned that God’s law is His way of life. It is a basic philosophy of life. The whole law is summed up in the one word love. I knew that love is the opposite of lust. Lust is self-desire—pleasing the self only. Love means loving others. Its direction is not inward toward self alone, but outgoing, toward others. I knew the Bible teaches that ‘lust of the flesh’ is the way of sin.
      “So now I began to apply the principle of God’s law.
      “I asked myself, ‘Why do I smoke?’ To please others—to help others—to serve or minister to or express love toward others—or only to satisfy and gratify a desire of the flesh within my own self?
      “The answer was instantaneously obvious. I had to be honest with it. My only reason for smoking was lust of the flesh, and lust of the flesh is, according to the Bible, sin!”
      Smoking breaks the Tenth Commandment. As Mr. Armstrong wrote, a smoker can hardly claim that he smokes to please others. People smoke to satisfy the self. Smoking is a desire, a thirst for self-gratification. It is lust! Jesus Christ taught that we must uphold the spirit of the law (Matthew 5:27-28). In other words, we must be concerned just as much with what goes on in our minds as with our actions.
      Spiritually speaking, our attitudes are all-important. What is the attitude of one who desires the effects of tobacco? It is one of coveting or inordinately desiring that which is damaging. The wrong desire of the mind—lusting after tobacco—is a spiritual sin—a sin against righteous character. Smoking is one of the ways of this world. Christians are to come out of this world (Revelation 18:4; Romans 12:2).
      Yes, You Can Stop
      Many people say they cannot stop smoking. That is not true! Yes, you can stop smoking!
      How? You must start by recognizing that smoking is a sin that will keep you out of the Kingdom of God. Paul said, “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God” (Ephesians 5:5). Smoking is covetousness and, as Paul states here, idolatry!
      Sin no longer has power over the truly converted person (Romans 6:14). God promises to cleanse us of sin if we are willing to confess our sin. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). In other words, God has obligated Himself to cleanse us of the sin of smoking if we repent, acknowledge our sin, and call upon Him for the extra help we need. God will help you if you humbly pray to Him for help (Psalm 103:11-14; Isaiah 55:7-9).
      Stop all smoking completely. Smoking is an addiction. Trying to quit gradually only feeds the addiction. You should quit suddenly and totally! It is not easy, but it is the most successful way. Commit yourself to quitting. Throw away all cigarettes, snuff or pipe tobacco. Get rid of all those things that focus your attention on smoking, such as favorite lighters, cigarette cases or pipes. Then never buy another ounce of tobacco!
      The actual physical discomfort of nicotine withdrawal usually subsides within three to five days of your last cigarette (this differs with each person). The psychological withdrawal usually takes much longer. You may experience tension, hunger and symptoms of restlessness. These discomforts will subside. Usually the habit of smoking can be broken in 21 to 30 days.
      Avoid compromising situations. Paul said, “Flee fornication” (1 Corinthians 6:18). You must apply this same principle to smoking. Avoid situations where you previously “lit up.” Don’t let other smokers, friends, relatives or stressful situations cause you to cave in to your old habit. Remember, just one puff will make you a habitual smoker again!
      Spend time with non-smokers and people who will support your efforts to remain free of cigarettes. Another way to get your mind off your smoking habit is to replace it with some other activity. Studies have shown that it is much easier to break a bad habit and stay free of returning to it if we have something to replace it with. Try getting involved in some type of exercise program like walking, cycling or swimming, depending upon your age, athletic ability and health. Getting a physical check-up is a good idea before beginning any new exercise program. This is an excellent replacement habit.
      Finally, don’t become discouraged or fear failure. And if you slip up and smoke—don’t give up! You can get rid of this life-threatening habit. When you do, you will not only live a better life physically, but also spiritually! ▪

    • Frank Davis says:

      While I believe that some Christian groups are antismoking, i don’t get the impression that the main ones (e.g. Catholic, Anglican) have joined in the antismoking crusade.

      The outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury remarked a year or two back that Christianity was being ‘denormalised’ (his term), and I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him. I’d be astonished if it wasn’t being denormalised.

      So I’d guess that the Churches are aware that, if smokers and drinkers and fat people and global warming ‘deniers’ are under attack, they are too.

      But I’m not a churchgoer, so I can’t be sure.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Faith United: Disparate Faith Groups Come Together Against Big Tobacco

        In 2005, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and leaders from many different religious denominations launched a national campaign — Faith United Against Tobacco — to mobilize the faith community across the country to support proven solutions to reduce smoking.

        Faith groups involved in Faith United include, among others, United Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, National Council of Churches, Seventh Day Adventists, American Muslim Foundation, Southern Baptist Convention, Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, Church Women United, Church of the Brethren and Islamic Society of North America.

        We were involved in Prohibition and against pornography and gambling as predatory enterprises. Fighting tobacco use also fits well with Christian and other faith groups’ teaching in general that the body is a holy temple.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Unless your getting grants for your church if you come into the fray………………That’s exactly whats been happening.

        • Frank Davis says:

          That list didn’t include Roman Catholics, Anglicans, or Eastern Orthodox.

        • magnetic01 says:

          These religious groups should hang their heads in great shame. They’ve been mobilized/duped – an relatively easy feat – by one of the high-profile and very effective Pharma-front organizations. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids is a “catchy” title…….. it even has the word “kids” in it. However, the organization was created in the 1990s by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation (Pharma-“Philanthropy”). RWJF is financed by its considerable stock holding in Johnson & Johnson, a manufacturer of NRT (nicotine patches, gum). By promoting smoking bans and extortionate taxes on tobacco, CTFK is simply attempting to expand the Pharma NRT market. It’s all so tragically corrupt.

          The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) established the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids in 1995 (renaming it the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids [CTFK] in 1996) and has provided continued support for CTFK since that time.

          CTFK’s mission from its start has been to promote policy and environmental changes that will prevent and reduce tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke, especially among children, as well as changes that will minimize the harm caused by tobacco

          From the RWJF site:

          Key Results
          From 1996 to 2006, CTFK:
          Advocated for regulation of tobacco products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in collaboration with the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and others.

          Launched Faith United Against Tobacco in 2002 to mobilize faith communities of all denominations to support proven solutions to reduce smoking.

          Provided technical assistance to state and local coalitions working on three main tobacco-control goals: strong clean indoor air laws, tobacco tax increases and increased state funding of tobacco prevention and cessation programs.

        • magnetic01 says:

          Some of the changes in the Vatican towards smoking (split the comment in two – two links maximum per comment to avoid “spammerization”):


        • Frank Davis says:

          Banning smoking in the Vatican doesn’t quite make smoking one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

          Or should that be Eight Deadly Sins?

        • magnetic01 says:

          While adopting antismoking measures and the general gist of antismoking, the Vatican hasn’t gone as far as the Adventists (and others) in declaring that any smoking is sin – that smokers are “idolaters” and “murderers” – that will [singularly] keep those “vile” smokers out of the Kingdom of Heaven.

          It is a major difference, yes. Not all denominations expound the very same view in doctrinal terms. But most denominations have gone with the antismoking bandwagon. We seem to be debating to what degree they’ve jumped aboard or to what extent the bandwagon provides a forum/soapbox for already long-held views. The better question is why most Christian denominations (and other religions) cannot discern a [global] physicalist (carnal) assault with all the standard signs of tyranny however well masqueraded they are in “benevolent” symbolism such as [physical] “health” promotion, particularly when it’s been seen before not all too long ago? It’s all a defensive stance, to varying degrees, in the face of the physicalist barrage.

        • magnetic01 says:

          Frank, allow me to put it another way through more specific questions (rhetorical).

          At the incessant bullying of antismoking zealots, the religious focus has been placed entirely on smoking and smokers. But what of antismoking zealotry? Why is there no – NONE – focus by religious groups on antismoking fanaticism? Antismoking has a long, twisted history. It wouldn’t take all too much research to identify that antismoking zealotry is a serious dysfunction. Antismoking fanaticism (including current) is a study in lying, cheating, deception, manipulation, megalomania, haughtiness, greed, thievery, avarice, moral fraud and sanctimony, and some of the most virulent even under Christian pretenses. It is a study in fear and hate-mongering that promotes disunity, disharmony, animosity, social division, bigotry and hysteria. These are all very serious matters in Christian terms. Why don’t we hear any of this from the Christian folk? Why are the Christian folk blind to these goings-on? Why is it all so dysfunctionally one-sided or, rather, upside down? It’s very telling.

          The only coherent question is whether antismoking nutcases make the Christian grade and what they can do to remedy their messed up thinking?

        • Frank Davis says:

          Antismoking fanaticism (including current) is a study in lying, cheating, deception, manipulation, megalomania, haughtiness, greed, thievery, avarice, moral fraud and sanctimony, and some of the most virulent even under Christian pretenses. It is a study in fear and hate-mongering that promotes disunity, disharmony, animosity, social division, bigotry and hysteria. These are all very serious matters in Christian terms. Why don’t we hear any of this from the Christian folk?

          With Christianity itself being denormalised, Christians may have enough trouble defending themselves than trying to defenc others.

          You could ask the same question of any other minority – Jews, gays, blacks, etc – and you’ll find that they’ve been defending themselves rather than defending others. Which is only natural. It’s the thief coming through my window that I primarily want to stop.

        • nisakiman says:

          I don’t think the anti-smoking message has taken the Vatican by storm yet…

      • All genuine Christians should beware united faith groups. In fact, I saw a video the other day calling for all real Christians to come out of churches altogether. I haven’t been to one for over three years, such is the heresy.

        Here’s what one church in London did when they were forced by law to put a ‘No smoking’ sign on their wooden front door.

        I like this one too, although you’re still alive in the ‘other place’ just tormented with all your sins for ever, feeling like a red-hot poker inserted into every orifice.

  11. magnetic01 says:

    A critical issue in the expanding problem is that “healthism” is still not recognized by most as neo-eugenics. Obsession with anti-alcohol/tobacco, diet, physical activity to the point of legislation are not viewed as “eugenics”. Contributing to this blindness is that scholarly commentaries of American eugenics in particular are few and far between. And the few that there are mostly focus entirely on the racial/heredity dimension, fostering the impression that this dimension is the entirety of the eugenics framework. The more detailed work of Ruth Engs is the rarity.

    I’ve also stumbled onto a 1963 paper that seems from the single-page free view that it addresses eugenics in greater detail, e.g., alcohol (I may purchase this paper soon – it might address, in passing, tobacco as well). For example,

    Prohibition & Eugenics 1920-1933
    “….the Eighteenth Amendment, if it really prohibits, is the most tremendous ‘eugenic law’ ever passed in the world’s history because it will profoundly influence the health, sanity, and stamina of generations yet unborn……… But I cite it as a tremendous eugenical problem which is also a political problem.” Albert E. Wiggam 1924

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Id leave em to be crushed………..let em hike out over the polar ice cap using Hawaiian Tropic ® to back up their theoretical beliefs………….

  12. Barry Homan says:

    You know what I wonder about? The next generation.

    The Justin Bieber group, or what have you. I feel they’re the real wild card, the Jokers in the deck.

    What attitudes are the present day 15-year-olds gonna have in 20 years’ time? Will they be looking for lots more things to ban?

    Has anyone ever stopped to observe them very closely? All of us here are in that 50 yrs plus/minus 10 yrs area, and we share that common “good ol days” outlook.

    Just been thinking about it. I’m wondering what our replacements are gonna do with all the madness they’ve inherited.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I have more or less zilch to do with kids these days, but I was much amused when both the teenage sons of an antismoking friend of mine (the only one left) started smoking first weed, and then tobacco.

      And of course I was myself subjected to fairly considerable antismoking propaganda in my school years. My response back then was to go and smoke inside a blockhouse along with a bunch of other pupils. It’s what kids always do.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        We had a smoking area at school of course nobody paid any attention to it and lit up at will even in classes. Perhaps an amazing sight was ashtrays on kids desks in highschool in the 1970s……………At least my High School did if you brought it in and left it. The teachers all smoked and had ashtrays on their desks and smoked while teaching……

        The military was no different we had ashtrays at our desks to smoke in class at Millington Tenn. Next to Memphis.

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Nightlight Noctiluca

    Interesting tidbit in the full paper is that COPD deaths were lower in places with higher smoking rates. That’s not surprising since tobacco smoke is potent anti-inflammatory medicine and COPD is a result of long term chronic inflammation (except for a rare genetically caused emphysema). The same protective effect of smoking is observed even in developed countries for people working in harsh conditions, such as miners, metal workers, etc. Here is a quote from the full paper:

    “Table 2 also shows the results of regressing mortality rates from COPD against national smoking rates.

    Coefficients are significantly negative for both age groups and both sexes. When this analysis was repeated using the local estimates of mean cumulative pack years smoked by the whole population in the 22 BOLD sites there was also a significant negative association in all groups with

    _more smoking_ being associated with a _lower_ national mortality rate for COPD (table 2). ”…/12/18/thoraxjnl-2013-204460.full

    Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease mortality and prevalence: the associations with smoking…
    Advanced search Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a commonly reported cause of death and associated with smoking..

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Maybe now we know those doctors that told their patients to smoke to help with lung problems were right all along ehh!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.

      The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ”

  14. Frank Davis says:

    I’ve added a link to the Godber Blueprint in the right margin. I’ve been meaning to do this for a while, because it gets referenced enough (usually without links provided). And furthermore I agree that eugenic doctrines have persisted in Western Society for well over a century (usually called something else – e.g. Healthism, Public Health – ).

    …except that it seems to have vanished.

  15. harleyrider1978 says:

    The history of eugenics and prohibitionism along with its junk science should be taught in school so as to make sure it never happens again……..He who controls the minds of the youth owns the future some famous Nazi once said!

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    Should other places follow New York’s lead and ban e-cigarettes from public places?

    Thank you for voting!

    Yes 8.5% (43 votes)

    No 91.5% (463 votes)

    Total Votes: 506

  17. magnetic01 says:

    A quick update on the Australian front.

    The incoming government promised less of the nanny state. In addition to the already extortionate taxes on tobacco, it started its term with introducing 4 x 12.5% increases in tobacco excise, one each year for the next four years. There are also two automatic annual increases in tobacco prices. These used to be aligned to the Consumer Price Index. But even this wasn’t enough. The outgoing Labor government aligned these price increases to average male earnings which yields a higher percent increase than the CPI. So, over the next 4 years there will be 12 rises in the cost of tobacco and all nicely topped off with a 10% goods and services tax on the lot.

    But some good news. For weeks approaching the New Year (New Year’s resolutions) TV is usually flooded with Federal Government-sponsored antismoking adverts. This year I haven’t seen one Federally-sponsored antismoking advert. I have only seen one antismoking advert run by an organization sponsored by a State government. And even this advert was a re-run of an earlier campaign. The only ones with frequency are the Pharma ads for nicotine replacement products to “help you quit”. It is a refreshing change.

    Some bad news. I stumbled onto a rental property site. I was interested to see if smoking status is an issue. It is. Intending renters indicate their smoking status. Worse still is that 57 of the 58 properties for rent had a “smoking outside only” requirement. Now I don’t know how they would police this requirement. If a person puts a mat under where they usually smoke and the property has good ventilation, it would be difficult to establish that smoking had occurred indoors. But it seems to be a given requirement at this time. The Godber Blueprint needs some updating. Godber and his nutcase ilk would have been happy if smokers could only smoke behind closed doors in their homes. But even this isn’t enough. Now smoking can only occur in the home if it’s in the backyard, or behind the shed or trash cans. It just goes on and on.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      It cant last forever………………….and it wont. They’ve reached the level and surpassed it of insanity. They have made laws and rules that will be broken and enthusiastically by everyone because well theres no other way for it to be!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Arcata smoking smackdown’s win for PC crowd

        Tim Martin/Here’s a Thought
        Posted: 12/29/2013 02:34:05 AM PST

        Put down the torches and pitchforks. The witch hunt is over. Cigarette smokers are officially lepers and social pariahs in Arcata. The asphyxiatingly self-righteous little hippie enclave is working to criminalize cigarette smoking within a large portion of the city limits.
        The Arcata City Council (Big Brother) is considering expanding an existing smoking ban beyond the streets surrounding the Plaza into residential areas of town. Community members have suggested to the council that non-smoking boundaries be extended to the commercial area of K Street. The move would divert more law enforcement resources away from crime and violence in order to ticket tobacco smokers.

        Perhaps they could follow up the ticketing with a brisk flogging.

        Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy to sit down in a restaurant and not have cigarette smoke ruin my dinner. But banning outdoor smoking is going a step too far. What’s next? Will Arcata criminalize fireplace smoke and diesel fumes? Will they soon outlaw French fries, breast augmentation, loud music, vending machine treats, fragranced laundry products, overweight people, alcoholic drinks, bad drivers, Republicans, and anything made synthetically with BP oil spill petroleum?

        Brace yourselves, folks. Black helicopters will soon be hovering low over your homes searching for signs of cigarette smoke. Even if you don’t live within the city limits of Arcata there is no escape. The Politically Correct police will eventually find you.

        Here’s a short list of smokers who will not be welcome in Arcata: Robert Downey Jr., Lindsay Lohan, George Clooney, Meg Ryan, Johnny Depp, Tommy Lee, Kate Hudson, Slash, Drew Barrymore, Charlie Sheen, Jamie Lee Curtis, Julia Roberts, Geena Davis, Ashton Kutcher, Ashley Judd, Michael Douglas, and Sharon Stone. In other words, a lot of very creative actors and musicians smoke cigarettes.

        I lived in Arcata for 20 years. Here’s what I can tell you about some of the citizens: they worship the Dalai Lama, Rumi, and are green to the core. They enjoy crystal channeling and Tibetan dancing. Arcata residents install solar panels on their roofs, brew their own biodiesel, and drive hybrid Hummers back and forth to the Co-op.

        These are not the kind of people you can invite over for a beer. They’d want to spend the evening talking about the dangers of global warming, nuke stock futures, and third world sneaker exploitation. People in Arcata think they’re going to save the world by eating nuts and berries and giving each other coffee enemas.

        I think the best way to save the world is a recliner, a big screen TV, and a six pack of beer.

        People in Arcata are easily offended because they are too PC. If there’s a verbal equivalent of a drive-by shooting, it’s that offensive epithet “that’s not PC.” It’s a label that allows the intellectually lazy to criticize anything they don’t approve of without having to offer a rational objection. Cigarette smoking is a prime example. Smoking is legal and widely accepted, but it’s presently being challenged in uncompromising communities such as Arcata as not being politically correct.

        Who decides what is and is not politically correct? It’s almost always those with power, such as pretentious public figures, overbearing government officials, zealous religious leaders, and influential activists (like Lady Gaga). Political correctness is most commonly used by folks like Rob Arkley and the crucifiers of Dan Johnson to control language, policies, and behaviors by controlling the conversation.

        Political correctness can be misleading, deceitful, and a wonderful camouflage for bigots and control freaks who want to keep others on a short leash or have them play by a particular set of rules.

        George Orwell saw PC behavior coming when he wrote the book “1984.” Now it’s here, in every state of the union. Soon, militant, anti-smoking communities like Arcata will probably require you to have cameras installed in your home, so they can watch you to see if you break any bans they have made into law.

        It’s amazing how people single out one addiction over another as being bad and feel they have a right to dictate to people how to live their lives. When did Arcata become everyone’s nanny? It was when they outlawed cigarettes and gave the thumbs-up to marijuana.

        The hypocrisy of that little college town is almost too much for any sane person to fathom.

        Tim Martin resides in Fortuna and writes this column for the Times-Standard. He can be contacted at

    • nisakiman says:

      The Australian tax rises may well be a good thing in a roundabout way, insofar as tobacco smuggling will become huge and the tax take will drop. Plus they will have to pour substantial extra resources into policing the ever increasing flow of illegal tobacco coming in. It may even provoke a ‘perfect storm’ in the tobacco tale there.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        My thoughts exactly and may well be why the new government is leaving it alone for now……..let it do what always happens BLACKMARKET BONANZA

  18. garyk30 says:

    “Most governments haven’t historically ever been antismoking, if only because tobacco provides them with big tax revenues.”

    Or maybe, they have been busy passing laws about everything else.
    Now, after several hundred years of passing laws, they are running out of other stuff to pass laws about.

    Seems that they feel compelled to pass laws in order to justify their pay and social standing and being in session all year round.

    We might be much better off with a part time parliment/congress.
    Give them two months a year to come up with a budget, approve generals and judges, and then send them home.

    These people have a dangerous amount of spare time on their hands.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      An old adage goes when congress adjourns the republic is safe………..til they meet again

    • garyk30 says:

      The Blair years: new law passed every three hours

      In his ten years as Prime Minister, Tony Blair has introduced a new law every three-and-a- quarter hours, new research reveals.

      Since 1997, an average of 2,685 laws have been passed every year – a 22 per cent rise on the previous decade.

      They have covered subjects ranging from the importing of bed linen to the evaluation of statistics on labour costs.

      The figure does not include European Union laws which also affect Britain – last year, 2,100 of those were passed, bringing the total to 4,785 or 13 every day, according to legal publishers Sweet & Maxwell.

      Of the laws, 98 per cent were brought in by statutory instruments, rather than Acts of Parliament. The procedure allows less time for debate by MPs than the tabling of a Bill.

      The statutes themselves have become longer, with five Acts passed last year taking more than 100 pages to explain, three of them more than 200, another above 300, another above 500 and one more than 700 pages long.

      Shadow Cabinet Office minister Oliver Heald said: “Tony Blair and Gordon Brown think the answer to everything is to make a new law.

      “But, after creating thousands of new laws, violent crime has doubled.”

      A spokesman for the Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, said: “Politicians often equate legislation with action.

      “But the growing complexity of the law is the main reason trials are taking longer and costing more.”

      A No.10 spokesman said: “The Government makes no apology for legislating where necessary to improve the lives of people in this country.”

      Read more:
      Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  19. harleyrider1978 says:

    I got this letter emailed from barack obama…. . Friend–I won’t sugar coat this: Right now extreme Republicans have a real chance to take over the Senate. their special interest allies are blanketing deadlock Senate battlegrounds with deceitful attacks, and they’re gaining ground in key states. If you don’t stand with me and respond to these attacks, we could lose everything that we fought for in a Republican senate takeover. The same extreme Republicans who shut down the government because they didn’t get their way would be in charge of both branches of Congress. You and I both know that if that happened, the consequences would be absolutely devastating. And that’s why I need you with me right now. Please pitch in $3 right away to help Democrats answer every single attack before the end of the year deadline in just 36 hours. Your gift will be triple matched. Plain and simple. I need your help. If we can’t respond to these attacks, we could end up with a Republican Senate to go with the republican house. And if you think things are gridlocked and challenging right now, wait until that happens. You and I need to show the other side that we won’t back down fro this fight. That’s why I’m asking you to stand with me to help defend everything we’ve accomplished together. Please join me and pitch in $3 before the critical end-of-year deadline in just 36 hours. Thank you, Barack Obama

  20. Rose says:

    Clive Bates is annoying me again.

    “my thoughts and good wishes turn to all those smokers out there who would like to stop smoking – as in stop inhaling of burning particles of organic and hot toxic gases deep into the lungs”

    If I really was “inhaling of burning particles of organic and hot toxic gases deep into the lungs” I am sure I would be the first to know about it.

  21. beobrigitte says:

    As I see it, as social divisions deepen, and acrimony rises, smokers actually are going to become enraged in ways they have yet to. Particularly when they’re treated like Pavlov dogs:

    Government hopes to ‘provoke disgust’ with £3m anti-smoking push

    “The campaign launches on 30 December and centres around a TV ad, created by Dare, showing how smoking “dirties the blood” that then travels around the body affecting the organs, which are shown in a dark close-up.”

    Indeed, these fools are playing with fire near a trainload of dynamite. A smokers blood is “dirty”? I am ever so sorry to inflict my DIRTY O neg (also suitable for neonates + being a ‘perfect platelet donor’ as well!!!) blood with a Hb of 150 onto the population of any country. I can assure you it will never happen again.

    £3million pounds wasted on a campaign that is outright discrimination of a vote casting sector of a population whilst NICE pulls names out of a hat of those that will receive life prolonging treatment.
    They say ‘it is self-inflicted’.
    On the other hand there is dignity and empathy for the ones getting&spreading a lot of the by now hard to treat venereal diseases. No treatment withheld, less even a £3million campaign that produce headlines such as:
    “Government hopes to ‘provoke disgust’ with £3m anti-f*ck push”.

  22. Marie says:

    Today my relatively new doctor told me, that I had been smoking for many years. I know, that I never told her that, and asked how she knew. She could smell it, she said, and see it on my skin!

No need to log in

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

You are commenting using your 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.