Tobacco Control is Driven by Hatred

A few days ago I included Michael McFadden’s Wall of Hate in this blog’s right margin. It’s a compilation of antismoking hate messages left in online comments, some of which were originally found by myself and Dick Puddlecote.

I included them because they’re part of the background of the War on Smokers, and serve to set the tone of it.

But if hate-filled antismoking commenters are Tobacco Control’s footsoldiers, and the top people – like Glantz, Arnott, Chapman, etc – are its generals, there’s a surprising mismatch between the hate-filled bile spewed out by the footsoldiers and the far more moderate and conciliatory statements of the generals, who are always saying how they want to “help” and “educate” smokers. I don’t think I’ve heard Deborah Arnott ever say that she hates smokers or wants them all dead. And I bet I never will.

So how is it that the top echelons of the antismoking movement are concerned to help and educate us poor, unhealthy, half-dead smokers, while the footsoldiers want to kill us? Where does the divide occur in the movement?

The answer, I believe, is that there’s no division at all. From top to bottom, the antismoking movement is driven by pure hatred. It’s just that the Arnotts and Glantzes – the public face of Tobacco Control – are much better at preserving a mask of caring concern than the uncouth rank and file beneath them.

I drew this conclusion because I remembered that Dr W, in whose house I once lived, was a both a major player in the antismoking movement (as well as active in the WHO), and also someone with a virulent hatred of “filthy, filthy, filthy” smoking – something I learned by hearing him shouting those words. The last time I ever saw him alive was when he appeared on BBC Newsnight as an urbane spokesman for the BMA. So if the footsoldiers of the antismoking movement hate smoking, here was one of its generals who hated smoking just as much. Is it likely that a man like him, with a visceral hatred of smoking, could have risen in the ranks of the BMA and the WHO without anyone noticing his views? Isn’t it more likely that his hatred was shared by many of his colleagues in the BMA and WHO – who would include people like Richard Doll and George Godber, both of whom he almost certainly knew?

And there’s a second reason for supposing that the hatred extends from top to bottom of the antismoking movement. And that is that the ‘generals’ never condemn the comments left by their footsoldiers all over the internet. They never ask them to moderate their views. And that can only be because they condone them – because they share the same hatred themselves.

One might also add that, despite supposedly being designed to improve “public health” and “help” smokers, all antismoking measures invariably attack smokers. Smoking bans, for example, “exile smokers to the outdoors” (Deborah Arnott), and exclude them from ordinary social interaction. At the same time punitive taxation robs smokers. And hiding tobacco products from public display obstructs smokers. And so-called “plain packaging” is really just a way of sending hate messages to smokers, by printing them on cigarettes packets. For while the actual message might be “smoking causes lung cancer”, the true message is: “We hope that smoking causes you lung cancer.”

And furthermore, as Rose was pointing out today, the footsoldiers writing the hate-filled comments are, it seems, very well organised from the top down, according to CAGE Canada:

Well, you can relax folks.  All this time, it was not your next door neighbor, co-worker, friend or relative who was turning into an aggressive “Mr. Hyde” when protected by the cover of anonymity.  We now have tangible proof that most of the people who are posting obnoxious and hateful material are simply following orders from the anti-tobacco industry:

We have obtained the manual on how to effectively implement outdoor bans published in September 2010 by Physicians For A Smoke-Free Canada (PSFC) :  SMOKEFREE OUTDOOR PUBLIC SPACES:  A COMMUNITY ADVOCACY TOOLKIT.

And, if nothing else, there’s the simple fact that antismokers never used to exist in large numbers (back in 1965, Dr W was the first one I’d ever encountered). They have been generated by 60+ years of ceaseless and gradually intensifying top-down antismoking propaganda. The generals have gradually enlisted the footsoldiers, and they have inculcated them with their hate. Most antismokers are people who have been taught hatred.

And, just like in any army, it’s the footsoldiers who do the dirty work while the generals keep their manicured hands clean. Deborah Arnott and Stanton Glantz will themselves never insult or scream hatred at smokers, or spit on them or slap their faces. Other people will do that.

In summary, the antismoking movement is driven by hatred, not reason, nor any public health concern. And the hatred extends from the top of the movement to the bottom. And one of the fault lines running through Tobacco Control is the need for its public advocates to preserve the appearance of being compassionate, caring health professionals, while actually being motivated by pure hatred. Such people are wolves in sheep’s clothing. And the footsoldiers beneath them are just wolves.

Which is why Tobacco Control must be completely destroyed, and every single member of it expelled from public life.

It’s ironic that, in a time when “hate crimes” of every kind are being investigated, the biggest hate criminals of all have ready access to the media and the corridors of power.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

45 Responses to Tobacco Control is Driven by Hatred

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    To good:

    Mike on December 28, 2014 at 11:03 pm said:

    I think the main reason for so many of these kill-joys is jealousy. They can’t eat or drink like they used to and it makes them miserable – so they want (need?) others to be miserable too for their overblown sense of self-esteem. Nothing kills the party more than a “former” anything (drinker, smoking, over-eater, etc.) – they always have to tell everyone how much “better” they are now that they don’t partake anymore and that all of us need to do the same. Hey “healthy converts” – none of us is you, none of us has your genetics or your past, so let us do our own lives our way, and you do yours your way. When I die, it will take a skilled surgeon to get the grin off of my face from all the fun I had – good luck having them get the frown off of yours Mr or Mrs Health police

    http://headrambles.com/2014/12/28/eat-drink-and-be-merry/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HeadRambles+%28Head+Rambles%29

  2. woodsy42 says:

    Another reason may well be simple personality defect. Many of us, if we are brutally honest, will admit to sometimes feeling superior and enjoying that feeling. This might be entirely acceptable – something as simple as celebrating winning a sport competition or out-thinking someone else over a crossword clue.
    I think however that lots of people need that feeling of superiority to bolster their egos so they look for people and groups they can insult and over which they can feel superior. In the past there were plenty of targets: Blacks, the working class, the mentally sick, women, the Irish, people with ginger hair, fatties – in fact anyone from a different ‘tribe’ or with different habits, But now political correctness has removed all those easy targets so all those people needing to feel better and superior turn on the only groups it is acceptable to despise – so smokers get it.

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    I see how it works. If you question or voice dissent you are a tobacco industry plant. Did they get Joseph Goebbels to help write their script? I also like there statement that smoke outside can read the same concentrations as inside. These PFSC talking points seem to assume the public is totally stupid (or just malleable).

    • Rose says:

      Straight from the horse’s mouth –

      Brainwashing in the Anti-Smoking Movement: #1 – Smearing the Opposition – 2007

      “If you take part in secondhand smoke policy training in the tobacco control movement, chances are that you will be taught that all opposition to smoking bans is orchestrated by the tobacco industry, that anyone who challenges the science connecting secondhand smoke exposure and severe health effects is a paid lackey of Big Tobacco, and that any group which disseminates information challenging these health effects is a tobacco industry front group. Consequently, the a chief strategy of tobacco control is to smear the opposition by accusing them of being tobacco industry moles. And in no situation should one say anything positive about an opponent, even if true.

      How do I know this?

      Because for many years, I was one of the main trainers of tobacco control advocates in the United States. And this is what I taught, because this was what I was led to believe. I attended many conferences and trainings and this is precisely what I was taught. I accepted it for the truth, and passed it along to others.”

      http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/in-my-view-brainwashing-in-anti-smoking.html

      • Rose says:

        Which of course eventually led to the infamous Article 5.3 of the FCTC.

        “The measures recommended in these guidelines aim at protecting against interference not only by the tobacco industry but also, as appropriate, by organizations and individuals that work to further the interests of the tobacco industry.”
        http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf

        As Frank explains –

        “What all this means is that the legislation cannot be allowed to be “subverted” or “interfered with” by not just the tobacco industry, but organisations or individuals who further the interests of the tobacco industry.

        And “individuals” means me. Or anybody else who objects to smoking bans. Because obviously, while any lifting such bans would obviously further the interests of smokers, it would also further the interests of the tobacco companies whose products they consume.

        As I understand it, what this means is that any representations made by anybody in opposition to any of the provisions of the Convention cannot be allowed to influence, or “subvert” or “interfere with” its provisions.

        All protest must be ignored. The treaty requires it.”
        http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/133676.html

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Bingo Rose! The biggest thing thatd piss an American off is being told nope you cant even contact your representative on this matter except us……….silence the opposition no matter what!

          The WHO Attempts To Censor Websites

          As well as being entirely unelected, it appears that the World Health Organisation also doesn’t care much for openness and transparency.

          Rumours have reached Puddlecote Towers that the WHO is spitting blood about a leaked document from a November 2013 meeting being widely discussed, and is busily putting the frighteners on those who are discussing it. They are not happy with minutes which mention that the WHO views e-cigarettes as a threat – and which prompted a much-reported recent letter to the WHO by over 50 health professionals – reaching the internet, so are doing their best to make the document disappear.

          It was leaked to the Financial Times in April and has been quoted on a number of sites including Clive Bates’s blog a few days later. Now, however, I understand the WHO are issuing legal letters demanding the minutes be removed and ordering the site owners not to make any reference to the minutes or to quote from them.

          In case you’re curious, this is the document in question, with paragraphs 11, 23 and 69-75 the parts that the WHO would prefer you didn’t know about until they pursue classifying e-cigs as tobacco products in Moscow in November.

          WHO Leaked Document about E-Cigs
          http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-who-attempts-to-censor-websites.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DickPuddlecote+%28Dick+Puddlecote%29

  4. carol2000 says:

    They don’t need formal lessons from a manual. They get that crap straight from the mass media. For decades, they’ve been quoting anti-smokers spouting that crap, and then “balancing” it with a sniveling smoker whining about nannyism. That’s a formula to make smokers look like easy targets and encourage anti-smokers to attack them. And the media make sure it stays that way – if a smoker answers in kind, they get banned and censored for being “uncivilized.”

    And those supposedly “far more moderate and conciliatory statements of the generals” are what egg them on. Their smugness comes from abusing their positions of authority to spew lies based on scientific fraud at us. As I’ve said so many times, the anti-smokers’ studies are all based on lifestyle questionnaires, so they’re cynically DESIGNED to blame smoking and secondhand smoke for diseases that are really caused by infections. And: “For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.”

    And all you’re accomplishing when you complain about the foot soldiers is to make it look as if the generals are acting according to the will of the people, when it’s historical fact that the fraud and its mass indoctrination indisputably came first, and it has been aggressively shoved down everybody’s throats for a prolonged period amounting now to over six decades.

    • Frank Davis says:

      the anti-smokers’ studies are all based on lifestyle questionnaires, so they’re cynically DESIGNED to blame smoking and secondhand smoke for diseases that are really caused by infections.

      Or radioactive fallout, or random mutations.

      • carol2000 says:

        WRONG. Radioactive fallout and random mutations are not unequally distributed to smokers as infections are. So you still fail to understand how their defective study design operates against us.

        • Frank Davis says:

          I have explained to you how radioactive fallout could have been unequally distributed. It is because fallout on tobacco plants would only have been ingested by smokers, not by non-smokers.

          And you have so far failed to explain why smokers should get more infections than non-smokers, aside from citing vague, hand-waving, “socio-economic” reasons which you never spell out, despite being repeatedly asked.

          I agree, of course, that questionnaire-driven studies are methodologically flawed. Though we probably don’t agree why they are flawed

        • carol2000 says:

          Your explanation of the radioactive fallout is the vague hand-waving. Exposure to the bombs themselves first resulted in more leukemia and thyroid cancer, rather than solid tumors. That’s not the case with smokers. And it plays right into the hands of the anti-smokers (who blame phosphates in fertilizer rather than nuclear bombs). Way to go, Frank!
          http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/tobacco.html
          Then you dismit it as “vague hand-waving” when there’s solid documentation of earlier acquisition (in childhood) of CMV, EBV and Helicobacter pylori among less-wealthy people, which results in higher rates of infection-related in both smokers and less-wealthy non-smokers. And in adolescence, there’s more HPV among the less wealthy as well. And falsely claim that I never spell out the reasons! That’s just like anti-smokers would do. It’s because their parents and other elders are more likely to be infected, plus crowding. It only looks like a mystery to people who are trying to be dense.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Exposure to the bombs themselves first resulted in more leukemia and thyroid cancer, rather than solid tumors. That’s not the case with smokers.

          They’re two different experiences. The Hiroshima population was highly irradiated by a single nuclear explosion. The smokers ended up with small numbers of radioactive particles lodged in their lungs that were guaranteed to produce tumours in surrounding tissue.

          Then you dismit it as “vague hand-waving” when there’s solid documentation of earlier acquisition (in childhood) of CMV, EBV and Helicobacter pylori among less-wealthy people, which results in higher rates of infection-related in both smokers and less-wealthy non-smokers.

          So it’s “less-wealthy people” who get infections more often, not smokers. So why am I supposed to believe that it’s smokers who get these infections more often?

          And if you say that smokers are predominantly found among “less-wealthy people”, that may be true now, but it wasn’t 60 or 70 years ago, when 87% of the British doctors (hardly one of the “less-wealthy” groups in society) in the Doll & Hill study that began in 1950 were smokers, and King George VI was a smoker as well.

        • carol2000 says:

          According to your theory, rates of lung cancer couldn’t have risen until long after the testing began. But they began rising long before that, in the 1930s. That’s the first big objection. Then:

          Inhalation of tobacco smoke is ranked second to food in providing Pb-210 and Po-210 exposure to man (Spencer et al., 1977). Among smokers, a larger portion of daily Po-210 intake (17.1%) than Pb-210 intake (9.4%) is provided by smoke. Exposure to alpha-decay products from these and other Rn-222 daughters has been established as the major risk factor in the incidence of bronchial cancer among uranium miners. It follows that exposure to alpha radiation from smoke inhalation may also be a factor in cigarette-induced bronchial cancer (Radford, 1974). Nevertheless, the reader should understand that estimates for continuous background inhalation exposure to Rn-222 and daughters (200-2000 pCi/d) greatly exceed that value estimated for Rn-222 and daughter exposure from tobacco smoke (Martell, 1974; Hamrick and Walsh, 1974). The time elapsed between leaf harvest and actual manufacture into a cigarette or cigar determines the Po-210 content of the consumer product, which is a function of initial Po-210 deposition plus Pb-210 decay. The activity of some domestic and imported tobacco products is summarized in Table 6.
          http://www1.fipr.state.fl.us/FIPR/FIPR1.nsf/9bb2fe8f45c4945e85256b58005abaec/5dc7355eabaa3e3c85256b2f00591a7e/$FILE/05-dfp-015Final.pdf
          Table 6 shows higher exposure in Japan than most other countries, which is in contrast to the lower lung cancer rates there. “A comparison of the estimated maximum doses indicates that adults ingesting an ‘ordinary,’ mixed Western-style diet in the U.S.A., U.K., and Federal Republic of Germany would receive between 10-50% the adsorbed radiation to target organs that adults ingesting observed diets in Japan and the Arctic would receive. Nevertheless, even the maximum estimated dietary dose (Po-210 dose to the spleen of Arctic dwellers; 0.23 to 0.58 annual rems) is less than 40% of the annual permissible dose of 1.5 rem to the public for non-blood-forming organs (U.S. DOE, 1981).” Table 7 shows estimated daily inhalation exposure of Pb-210
          and Po-210 to smokers. And “The smoking dose estimates are most comparable to those obtained for dietary intake by Arctic dwellers.”

          And it looks like you have a problem sympathizing with less-wealthy people. Nevertheless, whether you like it or not, the class difference between smokers and non-smokers is well-established and has existed dor a long time and has been growing recently. Also, remember that the doctors were compared with other doctors, not the general public, and gradients exist within classes as well as overall. Here’s how the recent economic crash has resulted in more crowding, especially among single parents.
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/31/the-shocking-number-of-moms-who-move-in-with-others-and-how-much-money-they-save/

        • Frank Davis says:

          According to your theory, rates of lung cancer couldn’t have risen until long after the testing began. But they began rising long before that, in the 1930s. That’s the first big objection.

          I wouldn’t have expected lung cancers to have occurred 20 years after inhaling fallout, like is supposed to happen with cigarettes. I’d imagine that it could happen quite rapidly.

          And while there was no radioactive fallout prior to 1945, there was plenty of radioactive material in circulation after about 1900, with “radium soap” and the like freely on sale. There only began to be a growing awareness that radioactive materials were dangerous when the people using them started to die off in the 1930s. I’m fairly sure that my first wrist watch in the 1950s had some sort of radioactive paint on it, given how bright it was at night. I’ve never seen anything that bright since.

          Also, why was a partial test ban treaty signed by JFK in 1963? Because fallout was getting into food:

          In 1959, radioactive deposits were found in wheat and milk in the northern United States. As scientists and the public gradually became aware of the dangers of radioactive fallout, they began to raise their voices against nuclear testing.

          Six months later, in Jan 1964, the US Surgeon General’s report citing smoking as the cause of lung cancer was published. So just when a major global cancer health threat (radioactive fallout) had been identified, cancer started being firmly blamed on smoking. This was misdirection.

          I’m not, incidentally, saying that HPV and other infections can’t cause cancer. I believe that they do. It’s just that, unlike you, I think there are multiple causes of cancer, rather than just one single cause.

          the class difference between smokers and non-smokers is well-established and has existed dor a long time

          In Britain it was the rich – e.g. Sir Walter Raleigh – who started the smoking craze in the 16th C. The habit slowly filtered down to the bottom of society. The rich then started giving up smoking in the 20th century, followed by the middle classes. The least-wealthy are now being bludgeoned into to doing the same.

        • carol2000 says:

          That’s a gross misrepresentation of my views to claim that I believe there’s only a single cause of cancer. I’m interested in causes that are of particular concern to smokers, due to their being used to falsely blame smoking. And it’s not the 16th century any more.

        • Frank Davis says:

          You continually assert that cancer is caused by infection. You never offer any other explanation.

        • carol2000 says:

          And I continually explain why I only mention infection: Because the anti-smokers’ studies are cynically designed to exploit confounding by infection, in order to falsely blame smoking. It explains a massive number of their claims of supposedly “smoking related disease,” not just lung cancer. That’s what makes infection particularly important to smokers.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Exposure to the bombs themselves first resulted in more leukemia and thyroid cancer, rather than solid tumors.

          Since when is thyroid cancer NOT a solid tumour?

          Frank did a while ago put out his theory of radiactive substances (most likely to fit the plutonium one if my memory serves) that I at fist viewed rather critically.
          It’s this “lodging” that made me look into this a bit more.

          Also, there are many diffrent forms of leukemia. Which one?

        • Fredrik Eich says:

          The use of phosphates can not explain the global decline in lung cancer in populations that continued to smoke such as in former soviet bloc countries

          The rise and fall of lung cancer is a better fit with the period of atomic testing than with
          the cigarette use.

          http://cf.datawrapper.de/ZxZPn/1/

          There is more lung cancer where it rains more and fall out can explain this too because fall out comes down with the rain .

          http://alternativeanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/lung-cancer-and-rain-is-there-link.html

          If it is true that a non-smokers risk of lung cancer is increased by an extremely small amount by a single exposure to radio active rain , then it is highly probable that cigarette smokers would be more vulnerable than pipe smokers, cigar smokers and non-smokers.

          In addition, cigarette smoke is pretty poor at causing cancer in animal testing unlike alpha emitting radionuclides. In animal testing just the mere presence of them increases risk.

          http://alternativeanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/peak-oil-phosphate-lung-cancer.html

        • Fredrik Eich says:

          Frank I have a comment in the bin.

      • Some French bloke says:

        “Or radioactive fallout, or random mutations.”

        Both of which factors can hardly account for the specific (i.e. not applying to other cancers, even those of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx) urban/rural gradient as regards lung cancer. LC victims are far more likely to originate from heavily urbanized areas: this means the mutations in their lung tissues are not all that random after all.

        And the fallout theory concerning LC is largely put in check by the LC distribution map of e.g. the U.S., considering that their continental atomic weapons tests took place in New Mexico or in Nevada:

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      During above ground testing fallout would have been a yearly happening not only on tobacco but other food sources too. Later after above ground testing was no longer happening the fallout had been plowed into the ground. Now,we must remember fall out waves after detonations are differing in strength and magnitude all around the globe heavier particles falling faster than light ones which carry farther.

      The question is what was the normal range of earth radioactivity before nuke blasts occurred to after. Amount of particles on plant vegeatation that wasn’t removed by rain or washing during processing as tobacco has always been reformulated into a tobacco paste sprayed upon conveyors for fast drying and cutting to legal widths for sale and package.

      That’s only one aspect from above ground blasting,its how much did individuals in higher radiated zones across the globe breathe in and keep imbedded in their tissues after that.

      Then we have inventions using xrays and other radioactive devices being used at the end of the 1800s and into the early 1900s. Remember the foot xray machine……….no way of knowing how much was induced into people from all these sources. Then as they aged and the nuclear fallout occurred on top of other sources we can end up with a well and truly radiated society and possibly in enough dosage over time to cause cancers at age in these individuals.

  5. smokingscot says:

    Had to laugh when Bloomberg ran a repeat of their interview with Tom Perkins yesterday. Tom’s a very seriously rich old boy and he made a hash of his disquiet about the 99% movement. He clarified by stating:

    “My point was that when you start to use hatred against a minority, it can get out of control.”

    So there’s he and presumably one or two other super-rich who don’t much like it when the pack turns on them!

    I can understand the sentiment, for different reasons.

    Nevertheless were I in the room at that time, I’d ever so politely point out that I have very little sympathy for him, nor his ilk, because it’s through the money and efforts of Bloomberg, Gates, Turner etc. that tobacco control have become a world wide force.

    And all they’re doing is “using hatred against a minority”.

    (I might add that anyone that feels the need to spend $325,000 to tell the time, probably won’t get a great deal of sympathy from an awful lot more than just me!).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547144/Multi-millionaire-Tom-Perkins-speaks-Kristallnacht-comments-saying-does-not-regret-message-boasting-watch-buy-six-pack-Rolexes.html

  6. Scott Ewing says:

    I am 6’2″ 280lbs and go to the gym 3 times a week, so I’m a pretty intimidating guy. That being said, tobacco control freaks don’t expect you to fight back. Seriously, if you get right into their face, they back down. On the internet, they just keep argueing, BUT in real life, I have never had a Nico-Nazi fail to back down when confronted. Women break into tears, and in one case, a guy lost control his bodily functions. Don’t take it folks. Go ‘R. Lee Ermey’ on them at maximum volume.

    • beobrigitte says:

      BUT in real life, I have never had a Nico-Nazi fail to back down when confronted.
      Neither have I. I am a fraction of your size and female. I still use them to wipe the floor with. But then, I have not come across any of THAT LOT many times. The ones I did do remember me.

      • cherie79 says:

        Me too and I am 5′ 1′ on the rare occasions I have run I to one of them I have told them where to go and the cowards that they are always back down. I think they are shocked that we don’t slnk away since we are so shameful.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Yep. They are being told that we smokers “huddle shamefully” in dark corners. I don’t do “huddle” and I don’t do corners. Shamefully I do when I have been an idiot. (Usually this has nothing to do with smoking, just with me being an idiot)
          I am 5’1″-n-abit – with quite a whacky sense of humour. The last smokerhater to drop a comment (rather nasty one which led to my reply) got that I am supposed to be happy to be blessed with a walking stick like he has WHEN I can’t breathe because of smoking. I did reply: “catch me if you can and I don’t even have to run”.

  7. Geoff Dennis says:

    As H L Menken put it “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is happy”

  8. Smoking Lamp says:

    I posted a response in support of an editorial against the patio smoking ban at the Toronto Sun yesterday. It drew intense and vehement ad hominem attacks when I advocated repealing the ban and presented references demonstrating dissenting opinions about the health risks of SHS. All of my comments were removed today despite the fact that I was cicil in my discourse. The editorial “New smoking laws stink” is at http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/04/new-smoking-laws-stink

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      They did IRO the same way in the past along with many others………don’t feel alone.

      • Smoking Lamp says:

        I know, I’ve seen your stuff censored too. It just galls me that they leave up vulgar hat speech while censoring dissent (especially links to actual studies and articles that refute or present an alternative view). The Antismokers and their trolls are on overdrive.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          We only have to win once,the Nazi has to win everyday or lose it all for another 80 years or so.

  9. beobrigitte says:

    A few days ago I included Michael McFadden’s Wall of Hate in this blog’s right margin.

    You, indeed, did. I, on the other hand, stopped reading after the first couple of lines. It gets boring reading the same idiotic comments over and over and over again; especially when you speak more than one language.

    I don’t think I’ve heard Deborah Arnott ever say that she hates smokers or wants them all dead. And I bet I never will.

    Of course you won’t. Our Debbie is a stranger to science; she is a PR person. (Which is much better than being a scientist, you just feed nonsense into the mass media stream….)

    But if hate-filled antismoking commenters are Tobacco Control’s footsoldiers, and the top people..
    They are easily recruited – often without pay. Just grab some 30-ish year old who lost a 70+ year old parent to lung cancer and you have the train-spotting-knight-in-shining-armour. Or, you grab a 70+ year old carpenter with bladder cancer. Since even the most outlandish cancers are attributed to smoking, your (bitter thus gullible) army is there. And they go for the kill. Even if it’s only pepperspray the happily blow into smokers’ eyes. After all, they are defending the “poor little David against the giant tobbaco industry!!!! At this point no-one thinks to ask a question: HOW COME the giant’s arms have been twisted to put e.g. diabetic ulcers on the product they are selling?

    It is high time we get rid of this anti-smoking rot. We are not entirely helpless. We can VOTE. OR demonstratively WASTE our vote. (If UKIP moves away 1mm from what they say I am going to play noughts and crosses with my voting slip!!!)
    I WANT a COMFORTABLE smoking room again in ALL buildings, easily accesible, of course. Currently it is only UKIP who addresses this, MY, issue. Whatever else comes with UKIP – I cross that bridge with a pint in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

  10. beobrigitte says:

    I want a comfortable smoking area again in some buildings, if the owner of that private building wants it.

    That goes without saying!

    The batch of non-smokers who visited me over new year had no problem with that my house is a smokers’ house. If I am a guest at their house it’s their rules. This works wonderfully, although the smokers gather outside and the non-smokers join the group who stays out there. There is no “stale” cigarette smoke (that I don’t have, anyway since I religiously empty the ashtrays before I go to bed) and everyone is happy. I do try and avoid visiting in Winter, though.

    • If they’re polite hosts, they’ll have a hard time declining your friendly and positive-expectation invitation that they join you outside to continue your visit/discussion over a smoke or two. And I’ll bet that before two long they’ll pull out an old ashtray or little plate from the cupboard and say, “Oh, never mind that. It’s cold out there, you can smoke here just fine!”

      :)
      Michael

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Pentagon’s War on Tobacco Fails

    FEATURE: The Defense Department Tried to Get Me to Quit Smoking. It Didn’t Work

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/pentagons-war-on-tobacco-fails/.

  12. “It’s just that the Arnotts and Glantzes – the public face of Tobacco Control – are much better at preserving a mask of caring concern than the uncouth rank and file beneath them.”

    Very very true Frank. The Arnotts and Glantzes aren’t stupid, and they’re very well trained for and comfortable with expressing themselves in the media. As long as it’s not a panel discussion where they have to deal with defending their lies off script you’ll never hear them saying anything too improper and they’ll always express that wonderfully intense faux-compassion for the poor smokers that they’re trying to help.

    Thanks greatly for featuring the “Wall.” I knew it had power when I created it for the Hate section of TobakkoNacht, but it really “came into its own” with that poster. I don’t know if http://AllPosters.com has a branch over on your side of the puddle, but if you grab them during one of their 40% off sales you can get an impressively sized 2’x3′ or even 3’x4′ (the design size actually) poster for not a lot of money.

    Heh, I also have one done up of that WW1(?) German soldier in the iron helmet sticking a list of forbidding rules into your face that comes out pretty nicely. If any of you ever want to do up a poster of that just let me know and I’ll send you the file. It can be retouched for your local area without too much trouble.

    Well written and analyzed Frank!

    :)
    MJM

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s