The End Justifies The Means

From an essay on SHS myths:

On the program As It Happens, I put these and other questions to a researcher for the Environmental Protection Agency. After some heated back and forth, he admitted:”Sure it’s crappy science, but look at the outcome–a smoke-free America.”

From Chris Snowdon:

So why claim that ‘obesity is worse than expected’?

“A little exaggeration forces the message home”

Further down the same piece:

The in-your-face smoking campaigns of the past, [president emeritus of the Hastings Institute, Dan Gilmore] says, effectively convinced people both that their actions bothered others and posed grave danger to themselves.

When it comes to obesity, he says, “the public has not as thoroughly been terrorised [sic].”

That’s three examples of the end justifying the means. The last one demonstrates open contempt for ordinary people. Whatever campaigns of lies or terror are needed to change their behaviour, these people are prepared to undertake them.

It will all come back to haunt them one day.

About Frank Davis

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

32 Responses to The End Justifies The Means

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Hell lets haunt their asses NOW!

  2. melinoerealm says:

    The ‘end justifies the means’ is a logical fallacy, because:
    1. If you believe you have a good cause, morally speaking
    2. Yet chose to pursue it with very immoral and foul means
    3. This means you are morally blind
    4. And if you are morally blind, you cannot have known what a good cause might have been in the first place

    So it’s the means that justify the end. Not the other way round – this is moral blindness.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Hate is a virtue for TC…………..Morals they never heard of them.

      • melinoerealm says:

        Couldn’t agree more Harley,

        yet, they made the mistake of making moral claims e.g.
        1. smoking in front of others is ‘bad’ cause you’re ‘harming’ others, you bad, bad, immoral, careless smoker!
        2. smoking is a filthy habit. Not only it ‘kills’ but it is also ‘filthy’…
        3. we must rid the planet of smoking, since it is a ‘filthy’ habit and we are good moralists who want to save everyone….

        The above were moral claims, without any doubt. And this is why the foul and immoral TC (whose hatred caused countless people to suffer, a huge economical catastrophe, very serious social consequences and even several murders) should be defeated morally too. That everyone should be left without any doubt that TC was both criminal and immoral.

        Another argument: TC broke the law consistently and repeatedly, systematically and intentionally, in order to spread the false claim about the alleged harm of ‘passive smoking’. Faking scientific research and spreading false news is against the law, and so is extorting public funds with false claims.
        TC broke several laws, several times, over a very large period and engaged into a great deal of actions punishable under penal law. For what? To pass a ‘law’ to which they demand obedience… Who? The law-breakers! Who should be in prison already and many of them will be.

        If they desire law, they should get law. More law than they could possible imagine…

  3. waltc says:

    In The Spy Who Came In From the Cold, there’s an argument between Leamas and his Russian interrogator, whose details I forget, but it’s a long philosophical argument about whether ends justify means and whether eggs have to be broken to make our preferred eastern and western Omelets. Overall, it becomes clear that both sides employ both of those tactics and when Leamas is pressed to declare what he thinks, he says: “I just think the whole lot of you are bastards.” Amen. The war against smokers is being fought by that particular All’s Fair manual and the warriors proceed with a clear conscience believing that they fight for the higher purpose of protecting and defending the (smoke-) free world.

    Sowell was the guy who changed my politics but I wonder why you chose that particular clip. Because TC could answer those 3 questions. “Compared to what? “(A society in which no one smokes is healthier. cleaner and consequently richer than one that includes smokers.) “At what cost?” (See the recipe for omelets,. And the pubs were failing anyway for all the following reasons….and, of course, tne recesssion…) “Can you prove it?” (Groans as they lug out the 100,000 pages of the Helena etc etc Miracles, and the SG, EPA, etc Reports and Stan Glantz’s studies of flourishing bars.) So anyone can seemingly answer those questions. What it takes is an open, open-minded debate before an open-minded, even semi-rational public. And for now, fat chance.

    • smokervoter says:

      What it takes is an open, open-minded debate before an open-minded, even semi-rational public. And for now, fat chance.

      Out in my neck of the vast Southern California landscape I just call “Not L.A.”, Rush Limbaugh is no longer on the air. I’m not sure of the circumstances but after years and years of holding down the coveted 9AM-Noon spot, Limbaugh has moved over to another station that lacks the 50,000 Watt Flamethrower status of KFI and thereby is off the dial to what I would estimate are 100,000 hearts and minds out here in Not L.A.-land.

      This totally sucks. He has been the main counterweight to the Health N’ Safety Twist faddists who are rapidly approaching Inner Party Pyongpang West position out here. I fear that Los Angeles’s ongoing case of Frisco Envy is eventually going to take its toll down here. As it is, Southern California is still livable and relatively Compulsory Hippiedom-free, but without his voice of reason and commonsense its not going to be easy.

      To fill in his time slot they’re extending the hours of their vile nanny state apologist, healthist/antismoking lawyer! morning show host and an ex-Canadian Scotsman who plays the semi-libertarian dude role until the issue is smoking and then invariably throws in the towel and sides with the health gestapo.

      Winning the hearts and minds of the people, who in turn put jerks and jerkesses into office, is serious business.

      I know, I know get with the times and with podcasting and such, but there’s a lot to be said for the simplicity and no nonsense accessability of analog radio. Moving the airwaves and exciting a little cardboard cone is a hell of a lot simpler than hard-drives and operating systems and passwords and usernames. I’m rapidly burning out on the digital revolution, I really am.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I wonder why you chose that particular clip.

      It was a short clip. And in it he describes “the anointed”.

  4. Junican says:

    waltc.
    It has yet to be determined who is going to be the successful tyrant,

  5. Rose says:

    “To root out a bad habit costs many lives and long years of effort.” – Wayne Wheeler

    “Men will walk upright now, women will smile and the children will laugh,” – Billy Sunday

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/wayne-b-wheeler-the-man-who-turned-off-the-taps-14783512/?c=y&page=1

    Prohibition.

  6. Rose says:

    Today

    No, sugar is not the new tobacco
    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/no_sugar_is_not_the_new_tobacco/14547#.Ut-_W_unwdU

    Oh yes it is.

    The infection has spread, an incubation of only four years and it’s now running rampant.

    Katharine Jenner – “Nonetheless, we were then treated to her expert opinion on the food industry’s attempts to find a bliss point’ of sugar, fat and salt in our food that would make us eat more of the industry’s products”

    Previously

    2009

    “Dr. Kessler is perhaps best known for his efforts to investigate and regulate the tobacco industry, and his accusation that cigarette makers intentionally manipulated nicotine content to make their products more addictive.”

    ““Why does that chocolate chip cookie have such power over me?” Dr. Kessler asked in an interview.”

    “The result of Dr. Kessler’s quest is a fascinating new book, “The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite”

    “Dr. Kessler isn’t convinced that food makers fully understand the neuroscience of the forces they have unleashed, but food companies certainly understand human behavior, taste preferences and desire. In fact, he offers descriptions of how restaurants and food makers manipulate ingredients to reach the aptly named bliss point Foods that contain too little or too much sugar, fat or salt are either bland or overwhelming.

    But food scientists work hard to reach the precise point at which we derive the greatest pleasure from fat, sugar and salt.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/health/23well.html?_r=0

    They do like their buzzwords and it makes them easy to find
    “bliss point + food” 23,900 results.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Now it has happened!! The health-brigade is floating under the ceiling somewhere.
      “Bliss point” food….. I ASK!!!!!

      Salt, sugar and fat have sustained humanity for HOW LONG?

      “Dr. Kessler is perhaps best known for his efforts to investigate and regulate the tobacco industry, and his accusation that cigarette makers intentionally manipulated nicotine content to make their products more addictive.”

      Ah, that explains it…..

  7. magnetic01 says:

    Consider the warning label “Smoking Harms Unborn Babies” (appears on Australian cigarette packs):
    http://colinmendelsohn.com.au/news/how-consumers-are-manipulated-branding/

    The statistical associations between smoking women and particular problems in newborns is confined to a few percent of deliveries to smoking women. Further, the role
    of smoking in these problems is highly dubious in that it is such a poor
    predictor for these problems. The vast majority of deliveries to pregnant
    smokers are comparable to pregnant nonsmokers. But you would never guess this
    from the label above which implies that smoking harms all babies.

    This inflammatory nonsense comes from the late-1970s. Look at the Godber
    Blueprint, the framework for the current crusade. Here’s an insight into how
    antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists “reason”:
    “Donovan’s most interesting remarks related to smoking and pregnancy. He
    admitted that he couldn’t explain how or why smoking harmed the fetus but
    suggested that, instead of worrying about such fine points, women be told that
    all unborn children of smoking women will be hurt. Donovan urged every
    participant to go back to their countries and publish estimates of the
    lethality of smoking and pregnancy based on the number of pregnant smokers. He
    urged this as an effective method to get women to stop smoking.”
    1979
    (p.14)

    This is the sort of inflammatory trash that has been fed to
    the public for the last 30 years. Facts don’t matter. All that matters to
    antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists is what needs to be said repeatedly to
    terrorize women into antismoking conformity.

    Take a look at this utter nonsense:
    http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-smoking-pregnancy-image14040841

    • Rose says:

      Donovan might have got his idea from earlier statements.

      “Louis Lewin, a professor of pharmacy at the University of Berlin, argued that smoking overstimulated women’s reproductive organs, reducing their ability to bear healthy children. Women were asked to cultivate “a different flame: the fire that warms the hearth and home.”

      “Robert Hofstätter, a Viennese misogynist gynecologist, in his 1924 book Die rauchende Frau attributed dozens of female maladies–including menstrual cramps, uterine atrophy, and ovarian dysfunction–to the action of tobacco, and called for the conversion of tobacco fields into fruit and vegetable gardens.”

      “Reproductive politics played a major role in the Nazi opposition to smoking. Smoking women were said to be less marriageable, given that they tended to age prematurely.

      Werner Hüttig of the NSDAP’s Office of Racial Policy pointed out that nicotine had been found in the breast milk of smoking mothers, and Martin Stämmler, an influential Nazi physician, argued that tobacco use by pregnant women was responsible for the growing incidence of stillbirth and miscarriage.

      A 1943 article in Germany’s leading gynecology journal reported that women who smoked three or more cigarettes per day were almost ten times as likely to be childless as women who did not smoke.

      Agnes Bluhm, Germany’s most prominent female racial hygienist, argued in a 1936 book that smoking could cause spontaneous abortions; this was especially disturbing to Nazi authorities, who placed a premium on ensuring a high birthrate among healthy German women.”

      “In the late 1930s and early 1940s, antitobacco activists called for increased tobacco taxes, for advertising bans, and for bans on unsupervised vending machines and on tobacco sales to youth and to women in their childbearing years.

      Activists called for a ban on smoking while driving and for an end to smoking in the workplace”
      http://toxicology.usu.edu/endnote/Proctor-Nazi-war-tobacco.htm

      In reaction to the public discovering that the modern anti-smoking campaigns bore a strong resemblance to the previous ones, probably due in part to “Anti Tobacco Campaigns of the Nazis” being published on the front page of Wikipedia, they did another study pointing out that the Nazi campaign was patchy and not nearly so efficient as the current one, with the denormalisation of smokers expressly not being allowed.

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

      Tobacco policies in Nazi Germany: not as simple as it seems – 2008

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

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Its all SMOKE AND MIRRORS

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    What judge are they talking about here:

    Appeals Court Blasts Judge Who Ordered Terrorist Freed

    You really wouldn’t be surprised either

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The Clinton-appointed federal judge who ordered the release of an Al Qaeda terrorist with close ties to Osama bin Laden got slammed this week by the appeals court that overturned her ruling, characterized as “manifestly incorrect” and “startling” in the appellate decision.

      Last fall Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the U.S. government to free Mohammed Al-Adahi, a Yemeni who trained with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, from the Guantanamo Bay military camp where dozens of Islamic radicals are still imprisoned. Al-Adahi met bin Laden years ago through his sister, who is married to one of bin Laden’s bodyguards, and he trained at the renowned Al Faroug camp in Kandahar where many of the September 11 hijackers trained.

      In her August 2009 ruling Judge Kessler acknowledged that the government’s evidence against Al-Adahi appeared “compelling and sensational,” but did not constitute actual, reliable evidence that would justify his detention. Kessler ordered Al-Adahi released and the government quickly appealed to the D.C Circuit.

      In its unanimous ruling a three-judge panel says that Kessler reached her decision “through a series of legal errors” and that she “clearly erred” in her treatment of the evidence and in her view of the law. “In all, there can be no doubt that Al-Adahi was more likely than not part of Al-Qaida,” the court wrote.

      Al-Adahi got shipped to Guantanamo Bay after Pakistani troops captured him trying to flee Afghanistan on a bus loaded with wounded Taliban soldiers. In 2004 a Combatant Status Review Tribunal at the U.S. naval base determined that there was sufficient evidence to prove he was part of Al Qaeda.

      • smokervoter says:

        Bill Clinton appointed Judge Kessler? Well, that says it all. While a lot of my generation were enthralled by the sight of Bill, Hillary and the Gores up there on the victory stage dancing rather badly to the worst song Fleetwood Mac ever made, I knew we were in for hell on earth.

        I’d spent 1970-1983 in the hippy-dippy pseudo-intellectual universe they’d inhabited and was well aware of their likely Liberal Fascist worldview. I’ll bet a lot of the boomer celebrants thought that marijuana legalization was right around the corner. Wrong, his DEA started busting growers out in California. Then they went after not only pot, but tobacco as well.

        Bill and Hillary Clinton (and Al and Tipper Gore) were the beginning of the end of freedom and liberty.

    • beobrigitte says:

      I take it the terrorist was an anti-smoker.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Yep Beo and Hillary if you recall in NY was getting Hammas campaign money……..

        Looks like the smokefree advocates have a friend in al quieda!

        Fred Thompson Explains Al Qaeda, Baffles Media
        Posted by Paul

        Published: September 9, 2007 – 10:53 PM Fred Thompson was giving a speech yesterday and he mentioned that one of the reasons the locals threw Al Qaelda out of Anbar was the prohibition on smoking. This apparently baffled one reporter by the name of Richard Sisk from the NY Daily News who thought it was a nonsensical answer.

        Fred Thompson: Al Qaeda smoking ban pushed Iraqis to U.S.
        BY RICHARD SISK (who doesn’t read enough)
        SIOUX CITY, Iowa – Freshly minted GOP White House hopeful Fred Thompson puzzled Iowans yesterday by insisting an Al Qaeda smoking ban was one reason freedom-loving Iraqis bolted to the U.S. side.

        “They said, ‘You gotta quit smoking,’” Thompson explained to a questioner asking about progress in Iraq during a town hall-style meeting.

        Thompson said the smoking ban and terror tactics Al Qaeda used to oppress women and intimidate local leaders pushed tribes in western Anbar Province to support U.S. troops.

        But Thompson’s tale of a smokers’ revolt baffled some in the audience of about 150 who came to decide whether the former Tennessee senator is ready for prime time.

        “I don’t know what that was about,” said Jim Moran, 72, who had driven from nearby McCook Lake, S.D.

        http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/09/09/thompson-explains-al-qaeda-baffles-media.php

        Tobacco Gangsterism and Terrorism Link

        Cigarette Bootlegging and Terrorism
        The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has stated that tobacco is the new commodity for terrorists. The ATF has concluded that contraband cigarette trafficking funds international money laundering and terrorism. The ATF reported that in 2002 Mohammed Hammound was sentenced to prison for using his cigarette bootlegging operation to fund terrorist activity. Mr. Hammound and nine other men, including his brother, Chawki, conspired to buy cigarettes in North Carolina, which had a 5-cent per pack tax, affixed phony tax stamps, and sold them in Michigan which had a 75-cent excise tax. Over four years, they amassed $1.5 million profit which they shared with Hezbollah –an avowed enemy of Israel and America.

        https://michaelbenjamin2012.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/tobacco-gangsterism-and-terrorism-link/

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          If NY votes for a candidate for an office knowing they got terrorist money as a campaign contribution they deserve everything happening to them after 911. It makes no sence and appears to be a direct surrender to the enemy.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Does this come as any surprise either…………..

    Judge Kessler currently co-chairs the Committee of the National Academy of Sciences on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence of the Federal Judicial Center. She is vice-chairperson of the District of Columbia Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure.

    http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/kessler

    Back in the 1990s when Clinton was putting all these prohibitionist Nazis in places of power within the Federal government he was setting up todays American health Nazis…….stack the courts,stack the health depts.,stack the national Federal depts. of health and safety, stack the EPA ………..

    And now we see how SHS/ETS was able to get thru the courts everywhere…………

    Authors
    Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence; Committee on Science, Technology, Law (CSTL); Policy and Global Affairs (PGA); Federal Judicial Center; National Research Council

    Description

    The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition, assists judges in managing cases involving complex scientific and technical evidence by describing the basic tenets of key scientific fields from which legal evidence is typically derived and by providing examples of cases in which that evidence has been used.

    First published in 1994 by the Federal Judicial Center, the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence has been relied upon in the legal and academic communities and is often cited by various courts and others. Judges faced with disputes over the admissibility of scientific and technical evidence refer to the manual to help them
    […]

    National Research Council. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13163

    C. Direct Measurement: Analytical Science Once the media that could be subject to contamination have been identified through pathways analysis (Section V.C), one available choice for determining the concentrations of contaminants involves sampling those media and sub- jecting the samples taken to chemical analysis. The analysis will not only reveal the concentrations of chemicals in the media of concern, but should also confirm their identities. Environmental sampling and analysis is under way all over the world, at and near contaminated waste sites, in the vicinity of facilities emitting chemicals to air and water, and in many other circumstances.64 One purpose of such sampling and analysis is to determine whether products and environmental media contain substances at concentrations that meet existing regulatory requirements. In many circumstances, regulators have established limits on the concentrations of certain chemicals in foods, other products, water, air, and even soils. These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one. The most common concentration limits are regulatory tolerances for pesticide residues in food, Maximum Con-
    63. See, e.g., Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 352–53 (5th Cir. 2007) (study of people with much longer exposure to organic solvents could not support conclusion that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by such solvents); Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 476 F.3d 946, 950 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (because diesel particulate matter was difficult to monitor, MSHA’s surrogate limits on total carbon and elemental carbon were reasonable). 64. See, e.g., Genereux v. American Beryllia Corp., 577 F.3d 350, 366–67 (1st Cir. 2009) (“all beryllium operations should be periodically air-sampled, and a workspace may be dangerous to human health even though no dust is visible”); Allen v. Martin Surfacing, 2009 WL 3461145 (D. Mass. 2009) (where air sampling was not done, expert resorted to modeling plaintiff’s decedent’s exposure); Jowers v. BOC Group, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 724, 738 (S.D. Miss. 2009) (OSHA measurements showed that 30% of welders experienced manganese fumes at higher than allowable concentrations); In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prod. Liab. Litig., 583 F. Supp. 2d at 776 (air sampling revealed formaldehyde levels higher than allowable).

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one. The most common concentration limits are regulatory tolerances for pesticide residues in food, Maximum Con-taminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water contaminants, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and, for workplace exposure, Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) or Threshold Limit Values (TLVs).65 Much environmental sampling and analysis is done, by both government agencies and private organizations, for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with existing concentration limits (some- times referred to as standards). But sampling and analysis also are undertaken to investigate newly identi- fied contamination or to ascertain exposures (and risks) in situations involving noncompliance with existing standards. As described earlier, information on con- centrations in the media through which people are exposed is the necessary first step in estimating doses. Although at first glance it might seem that direct measurements of concentra- tions would provide the most reliable data, there are limits to what can be gained through this approach.
    • How can we be sure that the samples taken are actually representative of the media sampled? Standard methods are available to design sampling plans that have specified probabilities of being representative, but they can never provide complete assurance. Generally, when contamination is likely to be highly homogeneous, there is a greater chance of achieving a reasonably repre- sentative sample than is the case when it is highly heterogeneous. In the latter circumstance, obtaining a representative sample, even when very large numbers of samples are taken, may be unachievable. • How can we be sure that the samples taken represent contamination over long periods? Sampling events may provide a good snapshot of current conditions, but in circumstances in which concentrations could be changing over time, and where the health concerns involve long-term exposures, snap- shots could be highly misleading. This type of problem may be especially severe when attempts are being made to reconstruct past exposures, based on snapshots taken in the present. • How can we be sure that the analytical work was done properly? Most major laboratories that routinely engage in this type of analysis have developed standard operating procedures and quality control proce-

    This type of problem may be especially severe when attempts are being made to reconstruct past exposures, based on snapshots taken in the present

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    From what Ive read so far SHS should have been tossed out of court as junk science………..

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    I would suggest each of us download this federal courts guidelines on acceptable science it is full of some really good shit!

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    But as is with activist judges they will always find a way to convict the 800 pound gorilla with no evidence at all………..

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      So according to the courts then there is a safe level to anything! And it would seem OSHA’s PELs are that guideline…………

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Now that seems to explain why Big tobacco sued over the ETS study EPA did. It was going to be used as a study for regulatory rules. But Osteen kicked that in the ass and Kessler let it stand on a you don’t have jurisdiction because its not being used as a regulatory study……….But we all know better. So today if they try and use that study for a regulation Judge Kesslers ruling becomes the law not Kesslers…………

        Further in thte above pages it states studys must have a 95% CI to be considered the gold standard and EPA dropped theres to 90%.

        Folks this BS of shs/ets was dead back in 1998 with Osteens decision………….

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Duh! should read Osteens

          So today if they try and use that study for a regulation Judge Kesslers ruling becomes the law not Kesslers…………

  15. beobrigitte says:

    On the program As It Happens, I put these and other questions to a researcher for the Environmental Protection Agency. After some heated back and forth, he admitted:”Sure it’s crappy science, but look at the outcome–a smoke-free America.”

    It’s crappy science and and untrue statement at the end. Sure, the Americans are being plagued by a dictated smoking ban as are we. But if you go there you will be surprised to see the number of smokers and start counting how often you are offered 1$ for a cigarette. (Unsure about the section of the population relying on care – the elderly from the old folks’ home opposite our hotel used the hotel car park when a [smoker] carer took them there.)

    Smoke-free America? Here the propaganda runs away with the anti-smokers. But they got the old folks’ homes good style!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Brigette in ten the libtard gov. Bredesen who pushed the ban thru had a smoking mother and she lived in a retirement home. Guess who got an excemption to the indoor bans!

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.