From Donald Trump’s inauguration address:
At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.
I wonder how many politicians in the political class believe anything at all like that? Hardly any, I imagine.
For most of them, as far as I can see, government is just a gravy train for their own enrichment. And that was what Trump was accusing most of the people standing behind him on the Capitol of having done: enrich themselves.
And if any of those people actually had any deep political convictions, it’s quite likely that they would have been almost exactly the opposite of Trump’s: that the citizens exist to serve the nation, that the citizens must be bent to serve the national will.
For what else is the purpose of state-sponsored Tobacco Control but to bend citizens to the national will, or the global will, or the will of the World Health Organisation? Tobacco Control sets out to restrict and control and reform the people. They are to be made to stop smoking. The goal of Public Health is to reform the people, create a healthy new people. The political elites, who regard themselves as expressing the national will, have determined that the people need to stop smoking, stop drinking, eat less, exercise more, and so on. They have a blueprint for a New Man, and they are using the resources of the state to bully and bludgeon everyone to fit the blueprint.
Tobacco Control has complete contempt for ordinary people. Tobacco Control has no interest whatsoever in what ordinary people might think. Tobacco Control sees people as a herd of cattle to be goaded and scared and stampeded in the direction they desire. Tobacco Control always knows better.
And what better evidence of it is there than the nasty little messages they now scrawl on every single tobacco pack? They are messages from Tobacco Control to every single smoker who lights up a cigarette. And they’re all one-way messages. There’s no answering back.
And if governments everywhere consent to support and fund Tobacco Control, it can only be because governments everywhere also believe that the people exist to serve the government or the nation, and that the people need to be re-educated to better serve. For they would make much better servants if they lost some weight, did some exercise, and stopped smoking and drinking. You don’t want a crew of fat slobs with beer bellies and fags hanging out of their mouths as the oarsmen chained to the oars of your trireme, do you? You do know that it is going to be triremes and quinqueremes once carbon fuels have been phased out, don’t you?
Donald Trump may be able to build the wall, and drain the swamp, and annihilate ISIS. But if he doesn’t destroy Tobacco Control, it will all be in vain. For smoking bans are the most accurate measure of the degree to which any people have fallen under the control of their governments – the governments that were supposed to serve them.
First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton
So I’m wondering whether Trump is going to revoke the White House smoking ban introduced by Hillary Clinton in January 1993 (right).
I was watching Trump signing papers in the White House, surrounded by friends and family, and handing out pens. Nobody was smoking.
I was also watching Nigel Farage speaking at a Donald Trump party. Nobody was smoking. Nobody was drinking either, as far as I could see. A ‘party’ for me is an event where people smoke and drink and talk, and maybe even sing and dance and flirt. If they don’t, then it’s not a ‘party’ – it’s a wake.
But maybe he was speaking before the party had started, or after the party was over?
It’s the same with Alex Jones Infowars. They’re up on hand-held camera there, fighting for the people against the globalists. But none of them ever smokes on camera. Although I’m pretty sure that Paul Joseph Watson smokes off-camera. And while none of them are smoking, they’re all still just as much under the No Smoking thumb of Tobacco Control as any TV presenter on CNN or Fox News or the BBC.
Frank Davis 
As DJT is a non-smoker, he’d probably prefer not to work in a smoky room but he might lift the ban for guests to the OO and maybe a comfortable indoor smoking lounge for staff? As a non-smoker i doubt he has even given it much thought, even those non-smokers who aren’t anti-smoker often don’t realise it is even an issue IME.
Whilst lifting the ban in the OO would have great symbolic value, i would prefer he scrapped Obama’s Ex-Order to ban smoking in social housing- that would probably mean more to US Smokers than a gold curtained OO in a blue haze.
I’m hoping Big Tobacco will be lobbying hard about the number of well paid AMERICAN jobs they might create in the US…..and will the Free Trade Agreement with the UK include the free trade in tobacco….?
i would prefer he scrapped Obama’s Ex-Order to ban smoking in social housing
I would prefer that he did both.
I know he is going to scrap every anti smoking federally funded program out there as he is gutting 1 trillion in spending a year from the budget!
It would be good if Trump could push TC back, because they are out of control. Soon even simple pleasures for ordinary folk will only be affordable for the rich, if this is every Governments intentions. Finland are at least being honest about where they intend to go – http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/finland-increases-smoking-costs-to-end-habit-by-2030-hftp5p97x
Paul Joseph Watson thinks there should be a stigma around smoking (and depression and obesity) https://www.facebook.com/PaulJosephWatson/videos/1486088714751944/ (at -3:53).
You’re right. At -3:53 he says, “yes there should [be a stigma against depression]! Just as there should be a stigma around smoking and obesity.”
Also Alex Jones himself:
-1:52 “Edward Bernays handed out cigarettes at suffrage marches to get women to smoke, and it killed hundreds of millions worldwide. Because women didn’t smoke back then. They said ‘It’s your right. Smoke. Be a woman.’ and so they smoked Virginia Slims. …they keep doing that propaganda. A few women were getting it. It’s psychological warfare. You’re being set up.”
So both Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson are antismokers. So why does the latter have a facebook page showing him smoking?
I guess it all fits in with the health supplements they peddle on Infowars.
I’ve left a comment for PJW under his Facebook video asking:
Why do you have a Facebook photo showing yourself smoking, when you say that “there should be a stigma against smoking and obesity” at -3:53?
“So why does the latter have a facebook page showing him smoking?” I wondered that myself. And I watched the video several times. And I concluded just as you did, that PJW is an antismoker despite all his claiming to be for freedom. And so I unfollowed him :)
He’s getting a bit of a roasting in the comments, but for his comments on depression rather than smoking.
I noticed that too. I decided not to keep reading and I forgot all about PJW. If he is so openly and vehemently against smoking, that taints anything else he might say and I’m no longer interested. It’s OK, there are plenty of others to follow.
I posted under Alex Jones’ video too:
Interesting video until 2 minutes before the end, when Alex says:
“Edward Bernays handed out cigarettes at suffrage marches to get women to smoke, and it killed hundreds of millions worldwide. Because women didn’t smoke back then. They said ‘It’s your right. Smoke. Be a woman.’ and so they smoked Virginia Slims. …they keep doing that propaganda. A few women were getting it. It’s psychological warfare. You’re being set up.”
It’s true that Bernays was doing that to get women to smoke. But then Bernays went on to become a doyen of the antismoking movement, and used his propaganda and psychological warfare techniques to get people to stop smoking. So there have been maybe 5 years of Bernays’ pro-smoking propaganda, and about 70 years of Bernays’ anti-smoking propaganda. It’s today’s antismokers – which unfortunately seem to include Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson – who have been subjected to intensive psychological warfare that they haven’t yet managed to break out of. https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/edward-bernays-antismoker/…
A robustly documented comment. I tried to vote you up but the page demanded too much info from me.
“Edward Bernays handed out cigarettes at suffrage marches to get women to smoke, and it killed hundreds of millions worldwide.
Whilst Bernays sure promoted smoking for women I fail to find INDEPENDENT research evidence of the claim that “it killed hundreds of millions worldwide”.
Because women didn’t smoke back then.
That’s not entirely true. There just were very few women smokers.
They said ‘It’s your right. Smoke. Be a woman.’ and so they smoked Virginia Slims. …they keep doing that propaganda. A few women were getting it. It’s psychological warfare. You’re being set up.”
Around that time women began to demand that their voices be heard. Even back then smoking started to become a symbol of freedom for women as it continued to be in the 1950s and 1960s.
Alex Jones is lying by omitting what most attracted women to start smoking. FREEDOM.
Those men and women liberated from ISIS who were so happy to be able to openly smoke again – that was the happiness of regaining their freedom. I bet 99.95% of them never heard of Bernays.
Whoever your Alex Jones is, his chronology is wacked. Virginia Slims didn’t exist til the mid to late Sixties so Bernays’ wicked program of Tempting the Suffragettes wouldn’t have got them to smoke Virginias–unless, of course, they thought it over for fifty years and then decided What the hell.
Reblogged this on Contra la ley "antitabaco".
If memory serves, Trump doesn’t permit smoking in his presence. I really, really hope I’m wrong about that.
First thing I found double checking that was: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/donald-trump-touts-lifestyle-without-alcohol-drugs/
WTSweetF ?! He’s supposed to be President of The United States not the bloody Prophet And Seer of the Utah Saints.
“The world is so tough and it is so competitive that you can’t put yourself, as a child, or even as a parent, if you want that child to be successful, at a disadvantage of letting them drink or letting them take drugs because it is not going to work,” Mr. Trump said. “They are going to be at a tremendous disadvantage and ultimately they may not recover.”
The world has become so tough and competitive because this kind of behaviour has has been actively encouraged. Joe Average has been told that highly intelligent people are highly competitive. The truth is the opposite. Highly intelligent people don’t work day and night; they get the job done in 8 hours flat and then move on to their hobbies and what they enjoy doing. Highly intelligent people do not have to compete. They are simply quicker and better in what they decide to do.
Very often a little genius starts late in life to pursue a carrier. A high IQ isn’t often complimented with a high EQ. My guess is that a lot of them learn a bit about life before pursuing a carrier.
As a parent: No parent is happy when their 16 year old falls into the house totally drunk. Incidentally, this seems to be happening more in countries where under 18 year olds cannot be served any form of alcohol. Must be the lure of the forbidden fruit. Trump better remembers that.
Trump’s inauguration already caused the BBC to state that:
Trump claims media ‘dishonest’ over crowd photos
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38707722
Trump is also to have said that he wants to remove the lobby groups. If he doesn’t remember to remove tobacco control he must remember that smokers are voters. Now and in the years to come.
His kids smoke outdoors around him
His kids smoke? In front of him? Do they really?
Because if so, that signifies a large degree of tolerance towards smoking. And perhaps also a large degree of scepticism about the TC claims of harm.
An anti would forbid their children from smoking, and they certainly wouldn’t tolerate them smoking when they were with them,, outside or not.
According to this http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-influential/10-personal-facts-you-didnt-know-about-donald-trumps-children/ no, none of his children smoke. The site looks tabloid-y, but they probably didn’t make that up.
They smoke go to clash theo put up the pics of 2 of them smoking
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=103061243542194&id=100015149552618&set=a.102714256910226.1073741827.100015149552618&source=48
Mike Pence’s views are rather better – http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/trumps-reported-vp-pick-mike-pence-said-smoking-doesnt-kill – but vice presidents don’t do anything and he’s always going to be remembered as the bloke who killed vaping in Indiana, which is rightly upsetting to our vaping friends.
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, whom Donald Trump is reportedly leaning toward picking as his running mate, once held a pretty unusual view on cigarettes: that “smoking doesn’t kill.”
At several points around the turn of the millennium, Congress debated whether to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products. Pence, who was elected to Congress in 2000, was firmly against it, arguing that smoking was not as dangerous as the “hysteria from the political class and the media” would have you believe. In fact, tobacco products kill up to half of users, according to the World Health Organization.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/trumps-reported-vp-pick-mike-pence-said-smoking-doesnt-kill
It’s high time the WHO gets dissolved. It’s only a mouthpiece for lobby groups and had no problems with ignoring the 2014 Ebola outbreak until after the 12.10 14 – 18.10.14 SECRET meeting in Moscow, being wined and dined, to decide what more cruelty can be inflicted to smokers and vapers.
Let’s not forget their twitter love affair with Duterte, and giving him a public health ambassadorship for his ‘commitment to a smoke-free Phillipines’. Or their apparently straight-faced statement to the Syrians that the most important thing they need to do now is to instate plain-packaging for cigarettes. http://www.fergusmason.com/world-hitler-organisation/
Thanks for that!
The World Health Organisation’s stated objective is “the attainment by all people of the highest possible level of health”. This is a noble goal, and in the first decades of its history the WHO worked hard to achieve it. The organisation played a major role in eradicating smallpox, for example – the only human disease ever to be completely eliminated. It’s launched massive campaigns to vaccinate against a host of other plagues, and played a major part in malaria control.
Oh! Smallpox isn’t eradicated from the face of the earth.
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/04/02/smallpox-declared-eradicated-while-still-alive-and-well-by-viera-scheibner-phd/
And malaria “control”?
Click to access Malaria_imported_into_the_UK_2015_report.pdf
Huston, we’ve got a problem…..
How is the WHO doing in eradicating Ebola? The latest strain apparently can survive latently in human hosts?
It’s time to cull the WHO money drain.
Since vapors have never been a friend much to smokers great!
Donald Trump may be able to build the wall, and drain the swamp, and annihilate ISIS. But if he doesn’t destroy Tobacco Control, it will all be in vain.
Get a grip! You seriously think that being able to smoke where you like is the main issue of modern society? Above employment, housing, security, immigration, external enemies and corruption? That’s mental!
Trump is unlikely to change the White House policy, because it would be offensive to many of his visitors to do so. People who don’t smoke generally don’t like being beside active smokers and don’t like being in rooms where people have smoked regularly. I know that you don’t like this piece of information, but it is nonetheless true.
It would be as rude to have non-smokers stay in a smokey room as it would be offensive to serve them food that you knew they didn’t like. The White House kitchens go to extreme lengths to make sure the food they serve is suitable to their guests, because that is important.
Don’t say I never let antismokers briefly comment here.
It would be as rude to have non-smokers stay in a smokey room as it would be offensive to serve them food that you knew they didn’t like.
And what about the smokers? Isn’t it just as rude to force smokers to not smoke as it is to force non-smokers to stay in smoky rooms? Why is it that only non-smokers count, and never smokers?
Why is it that only non-smokers count, and never smokers?
Here I have to give my non-smoking friends a voice. They value our friendship and do provide a smoking room in their houses for me and other smoking friends.
We go back a long way and will not let anything interfere.
I wish the non-smokers would count. It is the cowardly smoke(r)haters who hide behind the term “non-smokers”.
Get a grip! You seriously think that being able to smoke where you like is the main issue of modern society? Above employment, housing, security, immigration, external enemies and corruption? That’s mental!
Isn’t smoking an issue for employment and housing? May I point out the pensioner Adolphs in Germany who was being evicted simply because he smokes in the flat he has rented for >40 years? (He won his case, btw)
I know….. passive smoke is powerful. It even crawls through telephone cables…..
Trump is unlikely to change the White House policy, because it would be offensive to many of his visitors to do so. People who don’t smoke generally don’t like being beside active smokers and don’t like being in rooms where people have smoked regularly. I know that you don’t like this piece of information, but it is nonetheless true.
There is nothing to stop Trump from designating smoking lounges. And there are many ways to ensure smoke(r) haters will not know unless they wish to join the jolly atmosphere there. Incidentally it would also revive industries and with that create more jobs.
It would be as rude to have non-smokers stay in a smokey room as it would be offensive to serve them food that you knew they didn’t like.
As already said, smoke(r) haters do not have to venture into the smoking lounges. My non-smoking friends don’t object to my smoking; they just have designated smoking rooms in their homes as they consider it VERY bad manners not to provide FULLY for their guests.
As for food visitors don’t like……. I am used to be served lamb. And I just eat the veg and leave the meat I really hate. No big deal. And most certainly no offense taken. I’m sure others deal with this issue as I do.
The White House kitchens go to extreme lengths to make sure the food they serve is suitable to their guests, because that is important.
In that case, please no lamb, shrimps or caviar. I’m quite partial to freshly caught moraine, though, and cannot resist a wagyu beef steak.
All that he has to do is say, like King Edward VII, ‘Gentlemen, you may smoke’.
On the surface it would seem like you may have a point, but let’s go deeper, shall we? You make it sound as if the White House is a telephone booth or an elevator – small place with no ventilation, so if someone smokes in there, tough luck. But the reality is very different, isn’t it?
Furthermore, it’s the message that it would send that matters, not that a bunch of politicians actually smoke in there or go outside. It would signal that enough is enough in perverting the science for what some perceive to be the greater good. Passive smoking is a throwback to medieval science and medicine, when it was thought that malaria is caused by bad air (mal-air). It would be a message of ‘enough with BS, let’s get real’. We either deal in passive smoking and transgender bathrooms, to the laughter and astonishment of future generations, or we deal in real issues.
You seriously think that being able to smoke where you like is the main issue of modern society?
Yes. Next question?
Above employment, housing, security, immigration, external enemies and corruption?
Actually not so much above but behind. The things you list are symptoms not the disease.
because it would be offensive to many of his visitors to do so
You might care to ponder why so many now find it ‘offensive’. Taking offence is learned behaviour. Who, or better still WHO, taught them?
Fortunately I am old enough now to never allow myself to be in the same room as someone like yourself .You don’t like smoky rooms good I won’t apologise to you I’ll just tell you to fill in the blanks _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
Dude you just don’t realize how much trump wants to puss those types off! He’d do it just for spite
One of your top posts, Frank. I might have to “borrow” from you :-)
Thanks. Feel free to “borrow”.
It is a good one sorta a catch 22 argument
If the president invites a 70 year old distinguished world leader, who happens to be a lifetime smoker, it would be offensive to send him/her out into to the elements to enjoy a cigarette. Who wants to be treated as a barnyard animal ?
Chances are i would think that Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov will be visiting the WH fairly soon.
I suspect that this Edward Bernays story has been skewed. In the 1800s/early 1900s women smoking was seen as a sign that they had ‘loose morals’. Maybe Bernays got women smokers into the marches to push the idea that women who wanted the vote were generally women of discreditable characters??
Pingback: The Rise of Mr Beer and Cigarettes | Frank Davis
Restrict, control, re educate, to better row the oars, of the kleptocrat ship of state. Excellent concise description of the reversed ‘citizens exist to obey’ basis for puritanical tobacco and other petty government intrusions into our daily lives in peonage. Thank you for the inspirational wording Frank – totally top rate.
Pingback: Q: What Is The Goal Of Politics? A: The Organic Nation « Amerika
Pingback: The Organic Nation « Amerika | WewUnik World
Thank you, Frank. You always enlighten and inspire me. I like the comment section too.