For the past few days and weeks I’ve been chewing over the idea that Tobacco Control is genuinely evil. And I mean really, really evil.
Tobacco Control always presents itself as working to “improve public health.” That is to say that it purports to pursue a public good, and so its aims are truly noble. But in fact, as I was pointing out a couple of days ago, the smoking bans that it advocates act far more to harm smokers than to help them. The smokers carry on smoking, but they now do so in cold, dark, wet, slippery, and dangerous places. They are put in harm’s way.
Someone recently told me, for example, that in some places in London, which had smoking bans inside and for several yards outside, he had concluded that the only place anyone could smoke a cigarette was in the middle of the road. What more dangerous place is there than the middle of a road?
Is it entirely accidental that these marginalised smokers are having their lives endangered? When ASH’s Deborah Arnott accurately predicted that “smokers will be exiled to the outdoors,” might she not have added “where they will be frozen, boiled, mugged, raped, and run over”? Isn’t exile to the outdoors a death sentence? Or isn’t it just as much a death sentence as, say, the practice of smoking? That’s to say, isn’t there just as much a greatly increased risk of mortality from being made to stand outside – and perhaps in the middle of the road – as there is from smoking? In fact, isn’t there a far greater risk?
And if Deborah Arnott could accurately predict that smokers would be exiled to the outdoors, could she not also have just as easily foreseen the dangers they faced outside. If one predicts that a ship will sink, may one not also equally predict, in the same breath, that some of its passengers and crew will most likely drown. The one catastrophe follows from the other catastrophe.
Perhaps she was herself incapable of drawing this obvious conclusion. But that does not mean that others in Tobacco Control did not fail to draw the obvious conclusion: the smoking bans that exiled smokers to the outdoors would kill some of them. Death would come in many ways, and from many different directions.
And if some people in Tobacco Control knew that smoking bans would kill some smokers, but did not point out this fact, nor raise any alarm, were they not complicit in their deaths?
And if they were complicit in their deaths, might it not also be that they actually wanted them to die? That is, smoking bans had, as part of their hidden purpose, the extermination of smokers. They would be killed off, not organisedly and efficiently in gas chambers or by firing squads, but in multiple different and undetectable ways. Of exposure. Of a cold contracted while standing outside. Of bronchitis or pneumonia. Of a broken leg. Of from a fall from a window. Of being run down and left for dead by a passing truck.
If there are health risks attendant on smoking cigarettes, Tobacco Control has acted to vastly increase those risks, by forcing smokers to smoke in dangerous conditions, like the middle of a road, or on a weak balcony, or hanging out of a window, or standing on a dark fire escape or roof.
And if this charge is brought against Tobacco Control, is it any different from the charge that Tobacco Control brings against the tobacco companies that it calls “merchants of death”, who they say are knowingly killing their own customers? If tobacco companies can be called “merchants of death”, then so can Tobacco Control.
Nor is it only by exile to the outdoors that Tobacco Control has set out to exterminate smokers. There are other means. The smoking cessation drug Chantix or Varenicline is widely believed to cause depression and even suicide among some of the smokers who take it. What better way to rid the world of smokers than to get them to kill themselves?
And what about the antismoking messages now plastered all over every cigarette pack, shouting “Smoking Kills”? Aren’t they suggesting to smokers that their habit will kill them, and thereby, through the power of suggestion, making it more likely that they actually will die.
…the placebo effect has a shadow side. The same mind-body power that can heal you can also harm you. When patients in double-blinded clinical trials are warned about the side effects they may experience if they’re given the real drug, approximately 25% experience sometimes severe side effects, even when they’re only taking sugar pills.
Those treated with nothing more than placebos often report fatigue, vomiting, muscle weakness, colds, ringing in the ears, taste disturbances, memory disturbances, and other symptoms that shouldn’t result from a sugar pill.
Interestingly, these nocebo complaints aren’t random; they tend to arise in response to the side effect warnings on the actual drug or treatment. The mere suggestion that a patient may experience negative symptoms in response to a medication (or a sugar pill) may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. (H/T Zaphod)
The high echelons of Tobacco Control will likely never admit that their eugenic aim (note that this link to http://www.rampant-antismoking.com no longer works) has always been to exterminate smokers. That’s how eugenic programmes work: by killing off the undesirables. But their foot-soldiers on the ground, and in the comments sections of numerous forums, have no such compunction:
“Please die from diseases from cigarettes sooner rather than later”
“Smokers should be shot and killed on sight!”
Is it very likely that that the generals commanding Tobacco Control have attitudes and outlooks very much different from their foot-soldiers? And if they do have a different attitude, why do they never express any regret or dismay at what those foot-soldiers have been so loudly and ubiquitously saying?
Tobacco Control is not driven by love of health, but instead by murderous hatred of tobacco and the people who smoke it. One might also add that it tells innumerable lies about tobacco in the process – for example The Black Lung Lie. And also that it robs smokers with the punitive taxes it always demands to be increased upon them. It’s hatred, lies, and robbery.
Is it possible that this hatred is part of a wider upsurge? A former left activist provides 10 reasons why she was no longer a leftist. The Number 1 reason:
…If you took all the words typed into the forum every day and arranged them according to what part of speech they were, you’d quickly notice that nouns expressing the emotions of anger, aggression, and disgust, and verbs speaking of destruction, punishing, and wreaking vengeance, outnumbered any other class of words.
One topic thread was entitled “What do you view as disgusting about modern America?” The thread was begun in 2002. Almost eight thousand posts later, the thread was still going strong in June, 2014.
Those posting messages in this left-wing forumpublicly announced that they did what they did every day, from voting to attending a rally to planning a life, because they wanted to destroy something, and because they hated someone, rather than because they wanted to build something, or because they loved someone. You went to an anti-war rally because you hated Bush, not because you loved peace…