It’s Time To Exit The WHO

H/T Harley for this Spectator piece:

The post-Communist quest for world domination runs straight through “health care.” Step one, health care is a human right. Step two, the government provides health care. Step three, every part of human behavior is subsumed under preventive health care. Step four, the government as health care payer and provider has the moral right – nay, obligation – to control all aspects of human behavior.

WHO is a proxy for government, a sort of super-government, and they are trying to move all this power and control up one level, away from national government to their brand of supranational dominion. We have enough trouble trying to keep national government honest, but at least it is somewhat answerable to the electoral process. Handing power to these guys puts citizens’ lives in the hands of nameless faceless bureaucrats, unelected and unaccountable.

The latest excess by these folks is as pernicious as it is officious. It targets everyone’s favorite vice, tobacco. Since cigarettes are the number one cause of preventable death, WHO places a priority on reducing smoking. Instead of curing diseases, they are repairing behavior. A secular exorcism, as it were; the doctor will shoo away the devil.

In this capacity, WHO encourages high taxation of tobacco products. Countries like that part, because it brings in money. But this makes the black market in illegal tobacco more profitable. At this stage WHO gives itself the authority to set security policy for countries trying to protect their borders and markets against tobacco smugglers, who bypass taxation and probably deliver a nastier puff to the smoker. Additionally, these smuggling routes can aid terrorism alongside organized crime.

Countries needing WHO and the United Nations’ help in other areas are pressured to cede control over policy in this area.

The results are a predictable bungle. As part of the narrative surrounding the evils of smoking, the tobacco companies are demonized. They are pilloried for poisoning the masses to line their pockets with filthy lucre. In keeping with this attitude, WHO will not allow the companies to play any role in the effort to fight illegal tobacco. Furthermore, WHO ostracizes companies or entities who do legitimize the tobacco companies by dealing with them. This includes Interpol, which naturally works with legal tobacco companies to fight illegal tobacco.

Add this up and you have Monty Python level absurdity. Countries that cooperate with WHO cannot cooperate with Interpol in fighting illegal tobacco imports and sales. The legal companies that sell the taxed products cannot help countries fight the illegal products which drive down both sales and taxes.

The bottom line is simple. In the age of Brexit, it is time to exit the whole Who’s Who of the WHO ilk. Authority needs to be localized to the extent possible.

Quite so. I was thinking a few days ago that WHO-instigated global smoking bans are probably prototypes for the globalised New World Order to test the efficacy of global legislation. Once any teething troubles had been resolved, the same playbook could be used for alcohol bans, meat bans, sugar bans, salt bans, and so on ad infinitum, all dictated by nameless, faceless, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

But one of the results of this, not mentioned in the article above, is that citizens all over the world who have been personally experiencing the consequences – “exile to the outdoors”, punitive taxation, etc – have become deeply averse to unaccountable globalist bureaucracies, and they have swelled the numbers of anti-EU, anti-UN, anti-globalist voters who recently voted for Brexit, and look set to vote for Frexit. It doesn’t seem to have ever occurred to the bureaucrats that this might happen. In fact it still hasn’t occurred to them that it is actually happening right now. They’re just completely oblivious.

The smoking bans will end when the WHO sinks along with the globalist NWO, and authority gets localised, and people start making their own laws the way they want them, not the way someone else does. And the whole smoking ban era will seem like a bad dream – which is actually the way it’s always seemed like anyway.


About Frank Davis

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

14 Responses to It’s Time To Exit The WHO

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    The Spec banned me in comments oh well……..

  2. Smoking Lamp says:

    I agree, it’s time to reform or disband the WHO. First step remove it from tobacco control. Second step return it to infectious diseases. If they balk remove all funding.

  3. jaxthefirst says:

    Re yesterday’s post:

    “One day we will get our pubs back”

    Maybe, but maybe not. Just heard on the radio that the Alcohol Health Alliance are stating that we are all drinking ourselves to an early grave and are therefore demanding (natch) that the price of alcohol be raised to “save lives.” Now, why am I not surprised that this second “demand” follows the first “statement,” I wonder? It’s always the next step after the “demand” for an advertising ban, and we’ve already had that. Now, what’s next? Can’t remember the exact sequence, now. Perhaps a lowering of the drink-driving limit, or maybe an increased length of mandatory minimum ban is next on the agenda, prior to prohibiting publicans from selling any more than a certain number of drinks to any one individual?

    Apparently, we can all buy alcohol at “pocket money prices” in supermarkets and so “something must be done!!!” Why don’t these wretched people ever indicate precisely where this “pocket money priced” alcohol is available. I’d rush down there and stock up immediately, but search as I might, I can never seem to find any of this mega-cheap booze in any of the shops I go into! I don’t drink very much at all (except for this month, on principle, when I’m making a point of having a wee tipple every single day – and very nice it is, too), but it’s always good to have some bottles or cans at home, just in case, isn’t it?

  4. waltc says:

    Well.. Your freedom to be governed only by local elected pols is only as good as the pols you elect. If Washington is to the US states the rough equivalent of Brussels to EU countries, it’s irrelevant to to the citizens of cities, counties, states that Washington hasn’t (yet) imposed national smoking bans (with the recent exception of HUD’s plan to ban smoking in all federally-subsidized housing units). The problem here occurs on the local level, with governors (like e.g. Huckabee of Arkansas) and mayors (like Bloomberg) and all the various elected city and county councils, state assemblies and senates, and boundary-leaping bureaucracies like Health Departments, Parks Departments, etc. etc

    Are you sure that your elected national, city, county legislators aren’t as gung-ho as the Brussels bureaucrats and the UN nannies? Weren’t the 2007 ban, and the plain packs sold only behind clunky shutters and the medical care exclusions the work of your own guys? The road to freedom is a lot rockier than the road to serfdom

    • Frank Davis says:

      It’s a matter of probabilities, isn’t it? Global government will mean, in respect of anything you care to mention, that there will legislation that is either for it or against it. So, for example, you’ll either get a global smoking ban or you won’t. It’s one or the other. And it may be a 50% chance whether it’s the one or the other.

      Now consider the localised situation. In the UK alone there are 48,078 villages, towns, and cities. If there is the same 50% chance that they will vote for local smoking bans, you’ll probably end up with about 24,000 towns with smoking bans, and 24,000 without them. And where I live in Herefordshire, if my nearest local town bans smoking, there’ll probably be two or three nearby ones that won’t, and I could drive there.. And maybe I’d move there. And when I moved there and started voting, I’d help ensure that they never did get to ban smoking.

      Even if opinion was 75% – 25% in favour of smoking bans, there’d always be a few places that would buck the trend. The more localised government there is, the greater diversity will result. The larger it becomes, the more it becomes one-size-fits-all.

      With a single global government, there’s just one throw of the dice. With localised government, there are thousands of throws – and millions over the entire globe.

  5. waltc says:

    Contemporary science is government-funded, self-confirming, agenda-backing junk. Says Royal College study:

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Anti-Smokers’ Most Common Arguments-Debunked

    Smokers Against Discrimination·Wednesday, October 5, 2016

    When attempting to argue in favor of smoking bans, anti-smokers will often resort to the use of overblown and exaggerated statistics and logical fallacies to make their case. This isn’t surprising, because the cold, hard facts simply are not on their side. First, a brief review of the arguments already debunked elsewhere on this site:

    1). Smoking bans curb smoking.
    Additionally, smoking rates across the world have either stagnated or gone up since smoking bans were enacted. In Ireland, for example, the smoking rate increased to an 11-year high–a third of the population–after the country enacted its ban.

    2). Smoking bans save society money.
    The rationale behind this argument is that smoking bans reduce smoking, which is also false (see #1). The hidden argument here is that smokers cost society money. This is unequivocally false; smokers pay for themselves through taxes on cigarettes with plenty to spare. As the New England Journal of Medicine put it: “…in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7% higher among men and 4% higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and non-smokers… complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs.” Perhaps what “costs society money” is how anti-smoking and government organizations misuse the surplus money made from smokers for anti-smoking ads and other programs intended to frighten and/or shame them into quitting. We humbly suggest they instead use those millions of dollars per year on cancer research.

    3). Smoking bans are actually good for business, because I go to restaurants now!
    The amount of people who are so against smoking that they refused to set foot in smoke-friendly establishments pre-ban was miniscule. Smoking bans are bad for business, according to the Michigan Restaurant Association, the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association, and actual business owners. For an anti-smoker to think otherwise because they now patronize an establishment is a prime example of arrogance–it presupposes that all nonsmokers share their smoke-phobia.
    A variation of this statement is often something along the lines of “I’m sure glad smoking is banned. Now I can go to the bar without having to be exposed to all that dangerous smoke.” The drinker in question might be terrified to learn that risking a trip to the average bar would expose them to airborne concentrations of carcinogenic alcohol between 500 and 2,000 times greater than their exposure to the combination of all human carcinogens present in secondhand smoke if the bar in question was still allowed to allow smoking. Will this information cause the anti-smoker to change their bar-hopping ways? Almost certainly not. But it might be of extreme interest to anti-alcohol activists (who, unless we repeal this ban, may someday thank anti-smokers for the idea!)
    In fact, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is currently engaged in anti-alcohol activities. The same entitiy anti-smokers allied with in order to “de-normalize” smoking enough to get it banned is now spending astronomical sums to “de-normalize” alcohol drinkers to acheive the same goal. Repealing the smoking ban is the only way to close the door to future bans such as this, because the concept is identical.

    4). Anti-smoking organizations have no reason to lie.
    Anti-smoking organizations have immense financial incentives to pretend secondhand smoke is harmful. Smoking bans may not reduce smoking, but they certainly make smokers try to quit–sending them directly into the arms of mega-pharmaceuticals that make nicotine gum and other try-to-quit smoking products. The very same pharmaceuticals, it turns out, that donate millions upon millions of dollars to anti-smoking organizations pre-ban. Such donations serve as investments with colossal payoffs both to the drug companies and to anti-smoking organizations, who then have the audacity to present the consequent junk studies (and junk public opinion polls) as “evidence” to “justify” smoking bans.

    5). This ban is a reflection of what the public wants.
    The only polls which indicate widespread support for smoking bans seem to come from anti-smoking organizations themselves. To their chagrin, most nonsmokers have no issue with the concept of separate, well-ventilated smoking sections. In fact, before the ban, many nonsmokers were perfectly willing to be seated in smoking sections if no other seating was available.

    6). The dangers of SHS are a scientifically-accepted fact.
    A growing number of scientists are stepping forward to state that the “science” behind the dangers is junk (covered here). Additionally, even members of anti-smoking organizations have broken ranks to denounce their groups’ spreading the false idea that SHS is dangerous. See also #7.

    7). The overwhelming majority of studies prove SHS is dangerous.
    Regarding cancer, the majority of studies show correlations that are so weak they would be dismissed if the subject were anything else and present a much more compelling argument as to secondhand smoke’s harmlessness in this regard. The general rule of thumb that a relative risk should exceed at least a 2.0 is by necessity disregarded by anti-smoking organizations to make this argument. There is a much stronger case to be made that electromagnetic radiation from power lines is a cancer-causing agent, for example, yet the data is still not strong enough for the EPA to classify power lines as cancer-causing agents. Hair dryers and cell phones also constitute greater relative risks than secondhand smoke, but the data is still not strong enough for them to be considered dangerous. It’s a double-standard and is the result of pressure from anti-smoking organizations, not legitimate scientific standards.
    This “secondhand smoke is dangerous” argument, depending on how it’s used, can be an example of how anti-smokers and even some government organizations play fast-and-loose when it comes to how they phrase things. What exactly do they mean by “dangerous?” At best, “potentially dangerous to a tiny, tiny fragment of the population with severe medical predispositions.” But would we label peanuts a dangerous public health hazard? Would we say “flowers are dangerous?” Perhaps we would–if we didn’t want to see or smell them in a restaurant, and wanted to trick the general public into feeling the same way.
    Such deceptive wordplay is necessary for anti-smokers because to get into specifics would destroy their argument: they’d have to say “secondhand smoke is completely safe for the general public.” And that’s the last thing they want to admit. While we have sympathy for anyone with any rare medical condition, we can’t simply ban everything that could cause exceedingly rare reactions from privately-owned establishments.
    Any time you hear the phrase “secondhand smoke is dangerous,” ask what is meant by dangerous. Or perhaps a better question would be: “what makes secondhand smoke uniquely dangerous in ways that other asthma triggers are not?” See also #8, 9, and 27.

    8). There are 4,000 chemicals in secondhand smoke!
    Most of those 4,000 chemicals are completely harmless at any level. The rest are certainly harmless at the levels found in real-world situations, a fact that has been established by OSHA and verified in tests around the globe. This fact is, of course, ignored by anti-smokers. The “4,000” trick is used to scare those who don’t know better. And if 4,000 still seems like a large enough number to be concerned about, realize the average daily diet consists of 10,000 chemicals, some of which are the same ones found in secondhand smoke. This argument also brings to mind the old dihydrogen monoxide (water, H2O) joke. With a little clever wordplay you can make any substance seem dangerous without much effort.

    9). There is no safe level of secondhand smoke.
    This statement is a misrepresentation of an opinion of Surgeon General Richard Carmona. Tellingly, anti-smoking organizations have taken this statement as out of context as a statement ever could be. It is now purposely used by anti-smoking organizations to intentionally frighten nonsmokers and guilt smokers into thinking SHS is dangerous to the general public. See also #7, 8, and 27.

    10). Ventilation cannot protect patrons and employees from SHS.
    Allowing smoking does not make the air hazardous to the general public to begin with. See #6, 7, 8, and 9. Additionally, even the smokiest, most un-ventilated dive bars don’t come anywhere near OSHA’s permissible exposure levels (PELs). A nonsmoker would need to be trapped in a small, unventilated place with hundreds, thousands, or even millions of smokers before even approaching unsafe levels. This would would be impossible. Covered here.

    11). The air is now “safer,” “cleaner,” or “healthier” because of the ban
    The air in smoking-friendly establishments before the ban wasn’t dangerous to the general public to begin with (see #6,7,8, 9, and 10). In fact, establishments were much more likely to be running ventilation pre-ban than they are now. Because of this, the air in many places is now much more likely to be contaminated with particles that actually are dangerous, such as mold, formaldehyde, airborne viruses and bacteria, not to mention common asthma and allergy triggers. So much for clean air. (see also #27).
    Once these points are countered, anti-smokers usually resort to their tried and not-so-true catch-phrases. In fact, some who are already aware that the points outlined above don’t hold water will skip with the formalities and dive right to the rhetoric. It’s actually astonishing to comb through message boards and see the following arguments again and again and again– especially since none of them are particularly good! Do they really believe this stuff? Or are they reading from some anti-smoking organization’s script?

    12). I have the right to breathe clean air!
    For starters, there is no such thing. Air is polluted everywhere, by substances which are actually harmful–not pretend-harmful like SHS. Scale Mount Everest, and you’d still be exposed to pollutants. Perhaps what anti-smokers mean to say here is “I have the right to go anywhere I want and not see or smell things I don’t like.” See also #6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 29.

    13). I have the right to go to a public place and not breathe smoke
    Before the ban anti-smokers had the right to choose not to enter establishments that allowed smoking. Now the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking has been taken away from business owners. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court ruled in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner that a place of business does not become a public property just because the public is invited in. A bar, restaurant, etc is not public property. It is privately owned, and occupied only by those who choose to enter. See also #3, 10, 11, and 12.

    14). Smoking bans respect the rights of ALL people–smokers and nonsmokers
    Before the ban, each business owner had the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking. Most chose to allow it. The ban has taken that choice away, barring it from privately-owned establishments occupied only by those who choose to be there. This ban only respects the “right” of a tiny group of activists to force their will upon others based solely on their disdain for smoking, and disregards everyone else.

    15). Health departments have the right to act for the protection of patrons
    Health departments’ focus relating to the food service industry is to protect patrons from microbes and organisms that could have direct and immediate health effects. Secondhand smoke has no such effect on patrons. See also #6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 27, and especially #11.

    16). There are far more important things to worry about
    When debating bans before they’re enacted, anti-smokers treat them as if they are the most important issue ever to face society. Once they’re passed, they’ll often claim it’s unimportant to talk about it any further. Business owners may beg to differ, as smoking bans are based on the false claim that secondhand smoke is dangerous, and they hurt businesses demonstrably. Anti-smokers who are suddenly too sheepish to debate their justifiability are doing so because smoking bans have no legitimate justification.

    17). Smokers are just selfish for wanting this ban repealed
    Anti-smokers pretend every nonsmoker supports the ban as-is, but this is not the case (see #5). Additionally, anti-smokers want bans imposed on those who don’t want them, regardless of their negative impact on business (see #3). Plenty of nonsmokers find the ban extremely overbearing or just don’t care either way, and therefore take no issue with the concept of separate, well-ventilated smoking sections. See also #14.

    18). If you don’t support a smoking ban, you’re supporting “big tobacco”
    The anti-smokers adopted a strategy of demonizing tobacco companies in the 90s; this was a public relations tactic to counter the notion they were in fact acting out of hostility toward smokers. Two decades later, they’ve dropped the pretense, and are now unashamedly openly hostile toward smokers. In any case, this argument presupposes that smoking bans reduce smoking; that repealing them increases smoking. This is untrue–the smoking rate in Michigan has not been influenced by the ban. (see #1). “Big Tobacco” therefore has no financial incentive to either support or be opposed to it.
    There’s a reason why anyone, from small-town restaurant servers and bartenders to respected scientists, may very well be accused of being “in league with big tobacco” just because they oppose a smoking ban. It’s the official policy of anti smoking groups to make such accusations.

    19). Such-and-such person got lung cancer from secondhand smoke
    Name three?……
    Covered here. There is not one documented death from secondhand smoke–not one. Not even anti-smoking organizations pretend they can name anyone who has died from it. See Dave Hitt’s “Name Three.” An excerpt: when asked to name three victims of secondhand smoke, the American Lung Association responded, “we do not have names, however, we do have scientifically proven studies that document that secondhand smoke exposure has been direct!” Read that again– it’s meaningful in its meaninglessness! See also #6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Occasionally, the “this has been proven in autopsies” argument is thrown in for good measure. This is also false. The amount of Americans autopsied is miniscule–roughly 8.5%. Even then, autopsies are less likely to be performed for disease conditions than due to external causes.

    20). A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a swimming pool
    Another often-recited catch-phrase, in use since the early 1980s. Like the anti-smoking movement as a whole, it’s attention-grabbing but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. A person can’t tell upon entering a swimming pool if someone has urinated in it, but people can easily tell upon entering a restaurant or bar if people are smoking. Additionally, a pool changes its water about once a year. A decently-ventilated restaurant changes its air roughly 50,000 times a year. Using the anti-smokers’ tactic of magnifying numbers by changing them into percentages, the “peeing in a swimming pool” sound bite is exaggerated by a factor of five million percent.

    21). A proprietor who allows smoking is like a proprietor who punches his customers in the face
    This catch-phrase has been around since at least the early 90s. It neglects to mention that businesses which allow smoking are occupied only by those who choose to be there. Would a catch-phrase like this stand up to scrutiny if the subject were pet or flower shop owners and asthmatics?

    22). Smoking bans are for the protection of workers.
    OSHA has established that secondhand smoke is safe for work. Secondly, no employee is forced to work in any business. And protection against what exactly (see also #6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 27). Given that secondhand smoke is nothing more than an irritant at worst, this argument would be like saying flower shops shouldn’t allow flowers for the sake of employees with asthma or allergies! Don’t you care about your workers, flower shop owners? Then you’d better get rid of those flowers (don’t worry-we’re sure doing so won’t hurt your business!) Many with actual allergies or asthma may be offended to learn they’re being propped up as unwitting martyrs by anti-smokers in this way.
    A perfect example of this “protect the workers” argument is the anti-smokers’ claim that “the #1 killer in the workplace is secondhand smoke.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, readily admits that there is no positive way to know that any worker’s illness was brought on by any of their surroundings/environmental factors at work. Information on work-related fatal illnesses are not reported in BLS tracking records, and are excluded because the incubation period of many occupational illnesses and the difficulty in actually linking them with work environments. So the BLS doesn’t know, but anti-smokers certainly say they do.
    Anti-smokers: “Is secondhand smoke the #1 killer in the workplace?” BLS: “We have absolutely no idea.” Anti-smokers: “That’s good enough for us!”

    23). Smoking bans are for the protection of children. The CHILDREN.
    Secondhand smoke is not harmful to the general public; no matter how long the exposure. See also #6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 22. It is also worth noting that the World Health Organization’s 1998 study on secondhand smoke determined it has a protective effect on children; according to the study, children who grow up with parents who smoke in the home are 22% less likely to develop lung cancer than those who grow up in nonsmoking homes. (see also #27).
    Activists like to think everyone views smoking as they do–as something so diabolically evil that no one should even have to see it–especially children. This is why anti-smoking has historically been seen as a fringe, extremist-type view. The exploitation of children to intentionally manipulate people is one of the most clear-cut examples of the types of propaganda that anti-smokers employ.

    24). My relative died from smoking! How could you possibly support that by wanting this ban repealed?
    This is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to confuse the issue (and a rather distasteful way to gain sympathy OR to intentionally make those opposed to the ban feel bad). Actual smoking can be harmful, true–but secondhand smoke does not cause lung cancer (see #7 and #19). Interestingly, this tactic is often implemented by anti-smokers in local city meetings about smoking bans as a means to gain sympathy, even though, again, it has nothing to do with secondhand smoke. See also #30.

    25). I’m not going back to the casino– there were smokers there!
    This argument is suddenly frequently used. Before the ban, anti-smokers would take their pick of restaurant to make the same type of statement. Now that the ban limits smoking to casinos, message boards are lighting up (pun intended) with comments from anti-smokers about the casinos they’re suddenly frequenting and never going back to. They certainly have a knack for stumbling into smoking-friendly places! Not only have anti-smokers gotten smoking banned from almost everywhere, they’re now complaining about the one place it’s still allowed. This jives rather smoothly with the “no-compromises” rule adopted by anti-smoking organizations regarding smoking bans. See also #3.

    26). Dirty smokers/greedy smokers/name-calling/and worse
    When they realize the futility of the rest of their arguments, anti-smokers often resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks such as these. Often they already know the rest of their arguments don’t hold water and skip right to personal assaults. This is an indication that their extremist anti-smoking views stem from a false sense of their own superiority and personal preference, rather than a legitimate concern for public health. To call a smoker greedy hides the facts: that anti-smokers have forced proprietors to go smoke-free against their will, often to the detriment of their business, solely to satisfy the demands of a tiny fraction of the population. See also #3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

    27). Secondhand smoke bothers my asthma/allergies/other conditions
    Regarding allergies: all allergic reactions are caused by proteins. Secondhand smoke contains no proteins.
    Onto asthma. Legislation banning asthma-inducing substances from places they’re expected to be found in, whether they’re restaurants, pet stores, flower shops, or any other establishment occupied only by those who choose to be there, creates an alarming precedent. This argument would necessitate the banning of other common asthma triggers commonly found in restaurants: eggs, milk, peanuts, soy, wheat, fish, shrimp and other shellfish, salads and fresh fruits, candles, perfumes, cleaning agents, and of course, cooking in general. See also #22 and 23.
    Note: sometimes this argument is deceptively phrased as “smoking causes asthma.” This is untrue. It is unknown why some people suffer from asthma, and others do not (as even the Canadian Lung Association admits).
    Also of note: in places such as California, where a state-wide smoking ban has been in place since 1998, asthma rates have since been skyrocketing. Anti-smokers would counter that one has nothing to do with the other. Exactly!
    So what’s really going on here? The bottom line is that anti-smokers are intentionally actively trying to “recruit” people with asthma to join their “cause.” They have absolutely no problem using anyone they can get their hands on to foment support. Just as they are quick to blame smokers for non-smokers’ lung cancer without any proof, they have no problem condemning smokers for asthma-related deaths as well.
    A shocking example of this occurred right here in Michigan. A Michigan waitress died tragically in 2008 (two years before the ban) of an asthma attack. Because she worked in an establishment which permitted smoking, anti-smokers quickly jumped on this “opportunity.” Despite the waitress being exposed to an untold number of asthma triggers that day, they didn’t hesitate to blame her death on secondhand smoke. It gets worse. A CDC report on the incident stated that “according to the medical examiner’s report, the victim’s father had seen her at 9:30 p.m. and stated she was having breathing problems at the time. The victim arrived at work at approximately 9:45 p.m.” (emphasis added). Her asthma attack began before she went to work.
    A 2008 article on the incident appeared in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine with the not-exactly-impartial title “How Many Deaths Will It Take?” Bizarrely (in light of its title) the article stated the death of the waitress was the “first reported acute asthma death associated” with workplace secondhand smoke.
    An asthma-related death is, without a doubt, tragic. But to dismiss every other potential asthma trigger, just to place the blame on smokers? No wonder people are inspired to make things like this.
    Risk Factors for Acute Exacerbations of [Asthma] Symptoms “Passive cigarette smoke often has been thought to increase the risk of active asthma, but studies to date have not demonstrated this association convincingly.”–American Lung Association/American Thoracic Society International Conference
    Does Civilization Cause Asthma “Like most people, I assumed tobacco smoke and pollution were the problem–this was the politically correct way to think. But these factors turned out not to play a major role.”–Fernando Martinez, Director of Respiratory Sciences at the University of Arizona
    Smoking in Pregnancy Ups Kids’ Asthma Risk “This increased risk appears to be related to smoking during pregnancy and not to tobacco exposure after birth.”
    Does tobacco smoke prevent atopic disorders (allergies, asthma)? “The prevelance of allergic asthma and allergic rhino-conjunctivitis decreased with increasing exposure tobacco to smoke in the adult study population.”

    28). Smokers are just addicts–why should anyone listen to what they have to say?…/oreos-may-be-as-addictive-as-co…/
    Another common attempt by anti-smokers to draw the focus away from their own weak arguments about smoking bans and disparage smokers in the process. There are a few things to note here; first, anti-smokers will commonly try to use this argument when it suits them, but use the “why don’t they just quit?” or “why can’t they just wait ten minutes to smoke?” argument when that suits them.
    Secondly, the labeling of smoking as “addictive” is controversial. While any repetitive action can be habit-forming and hard to give up (biting your fingernails, for example), the addictiveness of nicotine itself is debatable. Before the 1980s, the word “addictive” was generally reserved for compounds which were likely to create withdrawal symptoms so severe as to cause fever, convulsions, or potentially fatal shock reactions. According to the 1964 Report of the Surgeon General, “In contrast to drugs of addiction, withdrawal from tobacco never constitutes a threat to life. These facts indicate clearly the absence of physical dependence.” In other words, withdrawal symptoms from substances like caffeiene, nicotine, and sugar–though they may exist–aren’t severe enough for the substances in question to be considered addicting. The 1979 Report of the Surgeon General added that smoking by no means fulfilled enough requirements of the “addiction model” to be classified as an addiction.
    So what changed? Well, nothing–nicotine is still nicotine. But in the 1980s, the Surgeon General was under heavy pressure from anti-smoking groups to classify smoking as an addiction, and so he did. The cited reason was that nicotine caused slight variations in hormone levels; yet, again, the same can be said of exposure to chocolate or caffeine. The reason anti-smokers wanted the change becomes obvious when you re-read the title of this argument: “smokers are just addicts–why should anyone listen to what they have to say?” This strategy of automatically dismissing smokers’ opinions was therefore not available to anti-smokers before they invented it in the 1980s. Those with a sweet tooth should note that anti-candy activists (yes, they do exist) would jump at the chance to get chocolate and sugar classified by the Surgeon General as “addictive.” Good luck fighting astronomically high candy bar taxes when you’re suddenly classified as an addict whose opinion “society shouldn’t listen to.” Laugh off the “addictiveness” of sugar if you’d like, just as smokers laughed off the addictiveness of nicotine in the 80s–but haven’t you heard that Oreos are as addictive as cocaine? See also #26 and #5.

    29). I hate the smell
    Lo and behold–the true reason behind the smoking ban finally comes out. This was anti-smokers’ main argument from 1492 until the invention of SHS danger in 1975 (see “A Myth is Born”).
    We cannot ban things because some particular group hates the smell–especially from places those smells are expected to be found in, occupied only by those who choose to be there, and against the wishes of the people who own that property. Restaurants serving fish–generally agreed to have a smell that can be disagreeable–come to mind, but for every smell out there, there surely exists people who hate it. Ventilation and nonsmoking sections serve as viable alternatives to a ban that continues to hurt Michigan businesses, and by extension, their dwindling staff. Once the ban is repealed, a patron (or employee, for that matter) who is unable to handle faint smells of smoke, or fish, or smoked fish, can simply choose not to walk into the place in question.

    30). Secondhand smoke is more dangerous than smoking itself
    You’d have to suck it up through a straw for this to be true. Once tobacco smoke mixes with air (which is almost immediately as it is released) it becomes harmless to the general public–even in massive, unventilated quantities. See #6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

    Dave Moran
    ( Smokescreen:… )

    • Facts & Lies about Smoking •

  7. margo says:

    Very good. I personally believe that the blaming of tobacco (and now booze and sugar) for all our ills began and continues as a determination to NOT put the blame where it truly belongs. Check out (and this has come up before) the 1959 agreement between WHO and the IAEA (atomic energy) and consider how the commission given to Richard Doll (1950 or so) to find out why there had been a ‘phenomenal rise’ in lung cancer quickly turned into an effort to prove that smoking caused lung cancer. WHO has a vested interest in protecting certain corporations, for which others are sacrificed. The message to us is: ‘You are to blame for your cancer and other illnesses.’

  8. slugbop007 says:

    To harleyrider1978,

    You should send a copy of your exposé to President Barack ‘hypocritical smoker’ Obama. We all should. Every day.


  9. jameshigham says:

    WHO, WTO, anything with a W – avoid like the plague.

  10. smokingscot says:


    Most interesting account of what may or may not have been a rammy between Steven Woolfe and a fellow MEP.

    Surprisingly the comments are not entirely disparaging.

    On topic

    I see that Mr. Trump wants the US out of the UN, Nato, the WTO, Nafta, TPP and quite a numer more of lousy trade deals.

    I’m reasonably confident, should he make it to the White House, he’ll set up an audit department to check for value for money with each and every Federally funded entity. That’s the way the guy thinks and he will ensure they’re very thorough.

    Way up there is the World health Organisation that chomps through billions each year. They wanted US$ 1 billion just to fight ebola. They got about 25% of what they sought.

    I have no doubt he’ll have the US quit the WHO pdq.

    As far as I’m concerned, this (audit thing) is something Ms. May should introduce asap, especially that overseas aid malarkey.

  11. Frank Davis says:

    Exclusive: U.S. lawmakers to investigate funding of WHO cancer agency

    …The briefing comes after the committee’s chairman added his voice to growing concerns among some senior U.S. lawmakers about the way IARC reviews and classifies substances.

    In recent years IARC has caused controversy over whether such things as coffee, mobile phones, processed meat and the weed killer glyphosate cause cancer.

    Its critics, including in industry, say it is sometimes too quick to conclude that substances might cause cancer, causing unnecessary health scares. It defends its methods as scientifically sound.

    In a Sept. 26 letter to NIH director Francis Collins, Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz describes IARC as having “a record of controversy, retractions, and inconsistencies” and asks why the NIH, which has a $33 billion annual budget, continues to fund it.

    “IARC’s standards and determinations for classifying substances as carcinogenic, and therefore cancer-causing, appear inconsistent with other scientific research, and have generated much controversy and alarm,” Chaffetz wrote.

No need to log in

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.