Class War

I noticed this somewhere:

Smokers in Norway, steadily losing ground as their habit is banned from more and more public areas, have received some much-needed support from Dr. Per Fugelli who says it’s time to stop harassing them.

The outspoken Dr Per Fugelli thinks restrictions on smoking have gone too far, and warns against portraying smokers as an “underclass”.

Fugelli, commenting on fresh proposals to extend smoking bans in restaurants and railway stations to city streets and public parks, warned against depicting smokers as inferior people.

“If an allergic person is bothered by smoke whole waiting for the tram, it’s possible to move away,” Fugelli told newspaper Aftenposten on Sunday. He warned Norwegians against the dangers of “health rage” and claimed the way smokers are being treated in Norway had “an unpleasant element of class.”

I’ve recently been toying with the idea that antismoking zealotry is a form of class warfare – but without managing to develop it very far.

One line I was pursuing was that while big Havana cigars are associated with ostentatious people in power (e.g. Winston Churchill), pipes used to seem to be more associated with the prosperous (and thoughtful) middle classes. And cigarettes are the soldier’s and working man’s tobacco product, providing a quick fix. Also cigarettes come in cartons just like bullets in a clip: ready to fire. Cigarettes are Fast Tobacco, a bit like burgers are Fast Food (which the zealots detest almost as much as tobacco).

If so, the rise of cigarette smoking in WW1 and WW2, particularly in the military, may have been seen as something of a cultural revolution by the working classes, just like Bolshevism or Anarchism. And it had to be resisted. And the long war on cigarettes has been a top-down counter-revolution against the working class, and part of the Cold War.

However, while the War on Smoking was initially directed solely against new-fangled (and therefore dangerous) cigarettes, it has now extended to all forms of smoking, and to all tobacco products.

Quitting smoking is one of the rites of passage into the middle classes.

These are just a few fragmentary thoughts I’ve had along these lines. For whatever actually is driving antismoking zealotry, it certainly isn’t any concern with health.


About Frank Davis

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

46 Responses to Class War

  1. – For whatever actually is driving antismoking zealotry, it certainly isn’t any concern with health.

    Exactly – and we know what it is. It is the medical mafia. The coalition of Big Pharma and all their doctors and experts. They want people to be sick, because that’s how they earn their money.

    • Reinhold says:

      Or at least “feel sick”. Which seems to be sufficient in times like these.

      • Remember the words of the chairman of Glaxo from the founding of the partnership between WHO and Big Pharma against smokers:

        “As a company, our commitment is to fighting disease. Tobacco dependence is in every sense of the word a disease with major but reversible health implications. Together, we can defeat this disease.”

        • Please read this disussion from the NGO mobilisation meeting against tobacco after the three biggest Big Pharma corporations joined together in a an anti-smoking cartel:

          (note that the three companies today have merged into Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline)

          Proceedings INGCAT International NGO Mobilisation Meeting, Geneva, 15-16 May, 1999:

          Collaboration between the NGO Community and the Pharmaceutical Industry on Tobacco Issues: Advantages, Drawbacks and Challenges. Summary of a discussion.

          “The pharmaceutical companies have taken a big step forward in this regard by collaborating among themselves in funding. For example, the NGOs mobilization meeting was sponsored by Glaxo Wellcome and the World Self-Medication Industry, a trade organization, with funding from Pharmacia & Upjohn and SmithKline Beecham.

          Such a consortium gives much greater assurance to recipients that pressure for product endorsement will not be forthcoming. The next step on the part of these companies that would be very favorably received by the NGO community would be to establish an independent fund for tobacco control outside their marketing departments.

          If NGOs and pharmaceutical companies find common ground working towards the same goals, then collaboration is not only possible, it is essential. There is nevertheless a clear need for as set of ethical guidelines to be established to ensure the transparency of funding and the independence of decisions.”

        • More interesting notes from this 1999-meeting between anti-smoking NGO’s and Big Pharma:

          Proceedings INGCAT International NGO Mobilisation Meeting, Geneva, 15-16 May, 1999:

          Collaboration between the NGO Community and the Pharmaceutical Industry on Tobacco Issues: Partnership and Co-operation to Reduce Tobacco-related Deaths.

          By David Graham, director, WSM tobacco dependence projects, Pharmacia & UpJohn (today Pfizer):

          “Where are we strong?

          We know about helping smokers. That’s important because 250 million current smokers alive today are going to be killed by tobacco if they don’t quit, or at least reduce their consumption. Many are already dissonant-dissatisfied with their smoking situation and would like to do something about it. But as we know, stopping tobacco use is difficult due to dependence. W110 has now called for treatment of tobacco dependence to be ranked as an important public health priority and for successful and cost-effective treatments such as NRT to be more widely available. With such a pandemic, self-medication with NRT is a vital component of broad reaching public health strategies, with and without the direct involvement of physicians. For the true potential or NRT to be realised there is need for shared understanding of its proven offering and safety amongst 1) tobacco users and 2) those who seek to help them.

          More than 70 controlled clinical studies involving more than 30.000 smokers have proven, unequivocally, that NRT is effective. Without NRT use, smokers are half as likely to succeed in quitting, resulting in cessation rates half what they could be Smokers need to be encouraged to quit with NRT a joint responsibility which can lead to greater public health benefit.

          Building on our strengths in helping smokers, in partnership with others who also seek to do so, while collaborating with those who help increase dissonance allows us to work together on a base of expertise and teamwork.”

        • Proceedings INGCAT International NGO Mobilisation Meeting, Geneva, 15-16 May, 1999:

          WHO and NGO Partnerships for Global Tobacco Control.
          By Gro Harlem Brundtland, MD Director-General, World Health Organisation:

          The rest of the speeches from the INGCAT proceedings in Geneva, 1999 are here:

        • @Klaus – From your first link, the WHO claimed (1999) that,

          Tobacco will cause 10% of the world-wide disease burden in 2020, up from 2.6% in 1990.

          How come? When smoking rates in the West had been rapidly declining. If it’s due to more people smoking in underdeveloped nations then the populations of 70% of countries on the continent of Africa have average lifespans of 60 years or under, so it’s not going to affect them much, if at all.

          The World Bank estimates that tobacco products cause an economic loss to the world of at least US$200 billion per year.

          Even if all the dire warnings were true, smokers dying many years younger than non-smokers would reduce the considerable costs relating to old age. If we all live to be 100, combined with fewer children being born and therefore a much lower workforce, the system would collapse.

          They pluck unbelievable figures out of the air (being compulsive liars). But I think there’s a lot more to it than just profits for Pfizer and GSK.

        • melinoerealm says:

          ” But I think there’s a lot more to it than just profits for Pfizer and GSK. ”

          Yes there is. And it’s nothing reasonable or sane.
          These people are mad. Actually, really, totally mad.

        • You probably never would have heard about these clowns if it wasn’t for the huge amount of money poured into their “cause”. And that wouldn’t have happened if Big Pharma couldn’t profit from it.
          The key to eliminate the anti-smoking war and all the other wars on people’s lifestyles is to cut their money-supply. Without money they are nothing.

        • melinoerealm says:

          ” The key to eliminate the anti-smoking war and all the other wars on people’s lifestyles is to cut their money-supply. Without money they are nothing. ”

          It’s not just money. All these parasites could have made money from tobacco investments and advertising and sports and lots of other relevant stuff.
          Big Pharma can’t rely on low-selling nicotine patches (failures actually). They sell tons of other stuff.

          So, it’s something else, not money. Money is a result but not the cause. To eliminate the parasites it is important – strategic- that the critical mass is against antismoking. It’s the Ideas that matter. All public support for anti-smoking must be -and is- eliminated.

          I expect the opposition against anti-smoking to become mainstream in the year 2015. The critical mass… ;-)

        • So you suggest that the global pharma mafia, their owners & their foundations have poured tens of billions of $ into anti-smoking lobby efforts, grants, collaborations, coalition-building, partnerships, scientific studies, articles & reports, meetings and anti-smoking symposiums all over the world just for fun?

          Interesting, but of course not true. Although they do not brag about it, BigP has fought nail & tooth to have smoking bans spread all over the world. For a clear reason: In my country (5.5 mill) 200.000 persons buy Nicorette gum each day at a cost of app. ex vat 60DKK ~ £6. (200.000 x 6): £1.2 million – per day. In one small country. For British figures multiply with eleven. These figures are not as small as you suggest. And they tend to explode when a ban comes in. Not to mention all the prescription sales of antidepressants and other medicines, which have soared too because of stigmatisation and loneliness following the ban. Hospital admissions are skyrocketing etc. We now live in a medical society of disease. And Big Pharma is king. That’s why they financed the anti-smokinig war. They know what they are doing – opposite to the fools in public health.

          “It’s not just money. All these parasites could have made money from tobacco investments and advertising and sports and lots of other relevant stuff.”

          No. Nobody has any money. The former Pfizer vice-CEO explains how this works:

    • carol2000 says:

      Big Pharma is a latecomer. The anti-smoking persecution had been going on 50 years before they got into the act circa 1999! The health fascists at Harvard started it. And it grew out of their ideology, that the individual is the property of the state and exists to serve the state’s purposes, so people have a duty to be healthy. This is the same belief as the Nazis had, and they use the same pseudo-science the Nazis used, namely “studies” based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection, which for that reason are rigged in favor of the lifestyle preferences of the privileged classes. And they believe that Magic Fruits and Vegetables and exercise and clean air (meaning never-smoking) miraculously prevent and cure disease. This is the same ideology as held by those who froth at the mouth against Big Pharma the most often. They in particular view Big Pharma as an existential threat to their belief system (while the vast majority of the public does not). The Big Pharma HATERS are more to blame for the anti-smoking persecution than the pharmaceutical companies, because it’s all based on THEIR ideology and beliefs and attitudes. It’s THEIR chickens coming home to roost, but they try to delude themselves and others to the contrary, as if they unrealistically expect to have an exception carved out for smoking.

      • Big Pharma was already “in the act” when the Surgeon General report 1988, “Nicotine Addiction” was written by pharma scientists Benowitz and Henningfield. The addiction theory in that report was the underlying business-case for the Nicorette gum:

        • carol2000 says:

          In 1988, Big Pharma didn’t even have a product for Benowitz and Henningfield to “consult” for them about. And some stupid addiction theory does not equate to sales, not when people throughout history have quit smoking without pharmaceutical aid, and the vast majority (over 90%) do so to this day. That stupid report was purely to dress up their “addiction” smear in pseudo-scientific clothes. And those who bash Big Pharma all the time clearly just have an ax to grind against Big Pharma.

        • “In 1988, Big Pharma didn’t even have a product for Benowitz and Henningfield to “consult” for them about.”

          Benowitz NL, Jacob P III, C. Savanapridi: Determinants of nicotine intake while chewing nicotine gum polyacrilex. Clin. Pharmacol. Therap. (1987) 41: 467-73

          For your information, Nicorette was licenced in Switzerland in 1978, UK in 1980, and in the USA in 1984. According to court files, Neal Benowitz has consulted for Big Pharma for 30 years – please see links in this article:

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Even before that Carol its been an on going thing for Hundreds of years. Anti-smoking goes all the way back to Columbus. But I think we have to look at it from a personal point in the people themselves that become anti-smokers. They obviously have more issues than just hating smokers or smoke. They likely have more pet peaves about everything in the world around them. They seem to be literally miserable people hating without warrant,controlling without need……………Its just a thing with them. Oh we know people can be enticed to hate or even to riot. But this plague on smokers isn’t just against smoking it s way much deeper and I believe on a mental defect within these people themselves. They are utterly nutters and hate so deep theyd be tomorros Nazis likely pushing the same eugenics hatred Hitler had until death. I believe the hate is so deep within these people theyd actually if allowed build death camps and kill the undesirable that are within their sights……..

        That’s the horrible deep reality I see in them and people like them.

        Smoking is just an easy target but look to what else they went after under the guise of public health. We find these people have taken over the United Nations and about every other position of authority they can get into or create.

        Its all aimed to control the whole world and all their hate they can muster while doing it.

        Can you imagine what theyd do if they actually got UN geographical zones created world wide and national independence was dissolved and we had UN directors and overseers in local control just waiting for the next edicts to come down……

        If nationalism ever had a need to arise and take control of its own destiny it is NOW!

        • “But this plague on smokers isn’t just against smoking it s way much deeper and I believe on a mental defect within these people themselves. They are utterly nutters and hate so deep theyd be tomorros Nazis likely pushing the same eugenics hatred Hitler had until death. I believe the hate is so deep within these people theyd actually if allowed build death camps and kill the undesirable that are within their sights.”

          It could be a mental defect, but on the other hand it could also be the way every human would react if submitted to a certain amount of propaganda. And then everything suddenly becomes evident, because the nazis were masters of propaganda. But – we have one more thing in common with nazi Germany: We also have a health crusade, and we have Big Pharma – an industry that feeds on disease:

  2. wobbler2012 says:

    Personally I just think that all these anti-smoking zealots are just born to be cunts.

  3. waltc says:

    Class warfare only in that smokers have been newly transformed into a “class” and a second class at that. In the shank of the 20th century everybody–all classes, low, middle, upper– smoked cigarettes. See “Mad Men'” if you weren’t around at the time, or any movie from the ’30s to a slow fade-out by the 90s. The image of smoking as (supposedly) only a working class vice is being slowly created as a partial reality because the other-directed middles have been shamed into quitting or hiding what they do as a way of being well-thought of by their peers. The Age of Conformity coming round again only now with a new twist. Chalk it all up to social engineering.

  4. This person thinks it’s a class war (it is many years old):

    “The Fraser Institute found that, underneath all the obvious sophistry, Canada’s war on smokers was little more than a war on the poor by members of the upper classes who embrace anti-smoking campaigns. You can go to any Canadian city and see thousands of starving kids crowding the food banks. Their crime? Having parents who became addicted to cigarettes in less politically correct times. But this is a small price to pay so that Canada’s legions of anti-smoking activists can attend winter conferences in Miami on teen smoking.

    “Other than punishing the poor (and often nonwhite), Canada’s war on smoking has been largely ineffective. According to Fraser Institute data from 1996, Canada’s smoking rates are 28.5 percent. All studies put Canada’s national youth-smoking rate in excess of 30 percent. The irony is that youth smoking was decreasing before Canada embarked on the “politics of punishment” crusade. Since the campaign commenced, youth smoking has been on the increase — significantly.

    “The precedent for this massive backfire can be seen in Nazi Germany. Despite an 800 percent increase in tobacco taxes, draconian restrictions on indoor smoking and a goofy, anti-Semitic, anti-smoking campaign, youth smoking increased in Germany by 50 percent between 1932 and 1939, while staying stable in France during the same period (British Medical Journal No. 7070, volume 313, “The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: A little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45,” by Penn State historian Robert N. Proctor).”


    • nisakiman says:

      According to official stats, 2012 smoking rate for age 20 – 24 in Canada is 20%. Age 15 – 19 is 11%.

      Since smoking rate figures are based on surveys, I do find myself wondering if, as the anti-smoking rhetoric is ramped up, the willingness to admit to smoking goes down.
      In the current smokerphobic climate, it’s a bit like a pollster asking someone “Are you a paedophile?”. The response they will get is fairly predictable, regardless of the proclivities of the person being asked.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        I wouldn’t believe a stat from any government authority or NGO when it came to anything.

        As for smoking they have to show reduced rates in order to keep the BS going………

        Everything they do is suspect and always written and reported to support the agenda or agendas………….

        They have every reason to LIE and none to tell the truth.

        • I refuse to tell my doctor’s practice my ‘current status’. In a way, this has backfired, because I am having a dispute with them, which will probably lead to legal action and they are accusing me of refusing to answer questions as part of their defence. I can’t stand ‘doctors’. Most of them. There was one who helped me a lot, but the local ones where I am now form a dirty cabal that gets practitioners they personally don’t like kicked out. I know two people whose careers the local ‘health’ Nazis have completely ruined.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          I forget who wrote this but its a good one…………..

          Stats on smoking are fundamentally unreliable – over reported by the zealots and GP practices (because their life-style ‘management’ is often linked, amongst other things to remuneration ie. reporting a patients smoking status to the MOH) and because of under-reporting by those that enjoy, knowing they will be viciously excoriated. Not dissimilar from alcohol consumption, the professional assumption is that everyone understates. In the meantime, as a health professional I have encountered young university students, having just returned from a gasper with the associated obvious perfume, and asked, ‘so you’re a smoker?’, they reply, ‘oh no, I’m not a smoker, not me. It’s just a hobby, a recreational past time’. Wry smile

      • prog says:

        Yes, fewer are admitting to it for fear of ‘reprisals’ by health bodies, but there is also the lower class label, and one has to wonder who are deliberately targeted for such surveys (and by whom). For example, in the UK YouGov is clearly anti tobacco and essentially consults members of the lefty, holier than thou, middle class that are all too easily responsive to loaded questions.

        • Is there no way of getting the information about who’s paying for YouGov’s surveys? Who are their customers?

        • prog says:

          ASH for one. Hardly likely to publish the results any poll that disagrees with its agenda and more than likely formulates the loaded questions anyway. They’ will have paid for it anyway, so it’s merely a case of of deciding the outcome in advance. Typical TC tactic, and not just re surveys. For example, I saw a survey that included this – ‘the dangers of second smoke are proven beyond doubt etc etc’. No option to disagree…

          I think most of the British public believe that YouGov is an official org rather than a private company with a left wing political agenda.

        • prog says:

          Thing is, public opinion should be a secondary factor when formulating laws based on sound scientific research, particularly re health. But their science is flimsy at best, so whipping up public indignation is the next best option. Hence the shift to the moral high ground when it comes to outdoor bans, e-cigs and plain packaging. If truth be told, they don’t do science any more (let alone junk science). It’s purely about social engineering, with smokers being the guinea pigs for worse things to come. Then again, they can’t try to influence and control the majority without something breaking – I’ve always maintained that smokers need other groups to feel the jackboot before the fascists are reined in.

      • @nisakiman – Yes, the Canadians are gradually doing as instructed since that article was written. What the ‘authorities’ are apparently concerned about now is that the 20-24 age group smoke more than anyone.

  5. margo says:

    Going back a couple of days, Frank, to answer your question on the ‘wildlife paradise’ of Chernobyl. See Alexei Yoblokov (biologist) (Consequences of Chernobyl) and also the study done by Moller and Mousseau on birds there. I think this might be the only scientific study that’s been done there on wildlife.
    Wild animals can indeed be seen in the forest – they move in wherever there are no humans – but there’s no scientific evidence that they’ve taken up permanent residence and breed healthy offspring there. The wolves etc seen there may all have immigrated in from nearby places or just be passing through. The Moller/Mousseau birds study (involving tagging birds known to return each year to the same nesting site) shows a population decline and lots of offspring mutations.
    The other thing to remember is that the radiation round Chernobyl is not evenly spread; it’s ‘patchy’ – some very ‘hotspots’ and some not so bad. In small areas, if one stayed more-or-less in the same place, it might be possible to live and grow safe food, but a short walk away the Geiger counter will beep fit to burst. This is how it is in Fukushima, too.
    The most striking thing, when it comes to nuclear plant accidents (no matter where they happen), is how hard it is to sort out truth from lies.

  6. The Blocked Dwarf says:

    I have long felt we need to start refering to ourselves as the Smoking Community, not ‘Smokers’ and call out the bigots on their bigotry -by name. Lets start describing capnophobic abuse as capnophobic abuse. “I find your capnophobic comments OFFENSIVE”. Everytime someone utters the words ‘passive smoking’ we should castigate them for propagating “Third Reich ‘Science’ ” (“so can I take it you also support the ‘racial science’ of the nazis, and you believe that Jews/blacks are untermenschen?”)

    • Jay says:

      Excellent suggestion TBD – turn it round on them! First off, the buggers won’t know what capnophobia means except that phobic flies in the face of the shining health of which they consider themselves to be exemplars. The third reich science is inspired.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Everytime someone utters the words ‘passive smoking’ we should castigate them for propagating “Third Reich ‘Science’

      I do everytime I post somewhere……………..and I mean everytime!

    • carol2000 says:

      Those studies based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection really are Third Reich pseudo-science. That’s how the Nazis did them, and the Cancer Society embraced their method with uncritical enthusiasm and uses them to this day. But the Nazis could hide behind the excuse of ignorance, while today’s anti-smokers CANNOT.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Educate others on the dangers of second hand smoke

    I cant get in to nail it so if ya want go bust that Nazi ass…………..

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      If we get funding, we would love to do it possibly in another two years and capture another group of students as they come up,” Ms. Thomas said. “Our hope is that these kids will go back and develop coalitions on their campuses.”

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Public health officials and health advocates said a way to promote healthy living in communities is to reach the youth first.

        Partners include the Winnsboro Community Foundation and the Winnsboro Wellness Coalition — a relatively new organization charged with improving health outcomes in the city.

        It appears to me they created a new coalition so they could double dip on the grant money even though it was the same folks from the other group in it!

    • The Blocked Dwarf says:

      I tried to post this: “”being able to create solutions for the problems that exist in their communities,” he said.”

      Surely that should read ‘final solutions for problems’ ? Seldom have I read such a screamingly bigoted, capnophobic and offensive article. Next they’ll be reissuing children a revised copy of ‘der Giftpilz’ or rather ‘der GistStengl’ -cos anyone who indoctrinates our kids with Third Reich ‘Science’ (and ‘Passive Smoking’ is pure junk science from the very scientists who brought us the DeathCamps) must surely also believe that Jews/Blacks/Americans are Untermenschen! ”

      But I don’t have a fecesbook account.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

      Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

      By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

      Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

      What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

      “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

      Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

      The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

      Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


      A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

      Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

      The whole tone of the article seems to be that the NHS is prepared to grant us an enormous favour by consenting to use our filthy organs. Oh, and don’t miss the comments; they’re hilarious…

      • carol2000 says:

        “This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke” – It does nothing of the sort, because people who are dying will grasp at any straw. Neither do the calculations of how many years’ passive smoke exposure it would take to equal active smoking. That is only impressive to people who already believe that secondhand smoke is not dangerous, because it puts fancier clothes on their preconception. The general public is more impressed by the lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection, which that does nothing to refute.

  8. The Blocked Dwarf says:

    *edit that should read ‘der Giftstengl’ (‘the poison stalk’- a German word for a fag).

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Watch out: the anti-smoking fanatics now want to regulate drinking – Telegraph

    The anti-smoking lobby has been offering advice to the House of Lords on how to regulate drinking. Draconian moves could follow

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