Arrogant Manipulative Busybodies

Hat tip Joe L for this report:

The FDA plan is two-fold: drastically cut nicotine levels in cigarettes so that they are essentially non-addictive. For those who can’t or won’t quit, allow lower-risk products that deliver nicotine without the deadly effects of traditional cigarettes.

I’m getting really so, so sick of all these arrogant, controlling, manipulative people who think they know what’s good for everybody, and who act to take away the choices that people have made, and replace them with their own choices.

I don’t want their “lower-risk nicotine delivery products.” I like traditional cigarettes, and traditional smoke. And also I don’t believe that traditional cigarettes are in the least bit “deadly”. I’ve been smoking them all my life without suffering any harm. In a few weeks I’ll be turning 70 years old. And that’s plenty enough for me.

Just because some little shit in a government department or a government agency or a university thinks he knows what’s good for me does mean that I have to believe him. Why should I? And increasingly I don’t believe these people. I believe them less and less. Faith and trust is trickling away. Soon it will be gushing away.

There was a time, not long ago, that tobacco companies simply sold tobacco to people who wanted to buy it and smoke it. Now it seems the tobacco companies are taking it upon themselves to reform their customers, by producing new products for them.

That’s a bit like a chocolate chip cookie manufacturer deciding to sell its customers tofu cakes in order to avoid the well-known deadly effects of chocolate. But what if the customers don’t like the tofu cakes? What if they just want the traditional, lethal, chocolate chip cookies? Or do they think that if they advertise them aggressively enough, people will just eat them instead? Maybe they do think that’s exactly what they can do.

In fact, as far as I know, more and more products are being subjected to the same process of officious manipulation by arrogant, controlling busybodies, as manufacturers are forced to reduce the amount of sugar or fat or salt in their products. We are increasingly being required to eat and drink and smoke what these busybodies want us to consume, not what we want to.

I think it’s going to the lead to huge black markets in everything. Not just real cigarettes, but real beer, and real chocolate chip cookies. And it’ll result in the bankruptcy of thousands of perfectly good businesses which used to be able to just sell people what they wanted. There’ll be the officially approved products, which nobody will like. And there’ll be the black market in all the products that people really do like.

For anti-smoking activists these new products may mean surrendering hopes of a knockout blow to the industry.

Tobacco Control seems now to be all about destroying an industry. They’re destroying it by making it sell something else instead of what it used to sell. They’re destroying it by making it stop selling anything at all.

But these busybodies don’t hate just the tobacco industry. They hate all industry. They hate not only the tobacco industry, but also the alcohol industry, every kind of food industry, and car industry. Name the industry, and they’ll want to close it down.

And above all, the controlling, manipulative busybodies hate humanity. They hate dirty, grubby humanity.

And there will be a revolt against them. It’s not just going to be a revolt by smokers. It’ll be a revolt by everybody against these lying, arrogant, conceited, controlling, manipulative, self-important, self-appointed elites. And they’ll all be blown away in a colossal explosion.

These self-styled elites are going to find one day that public trust in them has completely evaporated. And no amount of advertising or campaigning or “education” will ever restore that lost trust.

About Frank Davis

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

40 Responses to Arrogant Manipulative Busybodies

  1. nisakiman says:

    If Tobacco Control manages to achieve its goal of making everyone move to ‘alternative products’, I wonder how they will spin the fact that the same number of people are still dying of ‘smoking-related’ diseases. Because that’s what will happen.

    Perhaps they’ll just move the goalposts once again, and call them ‘sugar-related’ diseases, or ‘salt-related’ diseases.

    Or maybe they’ll just do what they do best, and blatantly lie about it. All they need to do is to re-programme SAMMEC, and it’s job done.

  2. RdM says:

    The thing is, this new variable-low-near zero nicotine content tobacco is genetically engineered, and the patents are owned by just one company.

    They have targeted Govt & MOH people for some time now, there is an NZ connection I see too, and if you copy paste the latter link into Wayback Machine you can see how their strategy, tactics, have developed over the years.

    Of course, as I think I’ve remarked before, that means they can also engineer high nicotine content tobacco, and they do, and without batting an eyelid after promoting the white pages research lab lo nic cigarettes they also have, or had, fun high nicotine ones, Red Sun.

    I see that Red Sun products link is not so active, but I’ve saved screenshots from earlier.

    • RdM says:

      Haven’t yet found the exciting previous screenshots, young people loving the high nicotine Red Sun – the present page has dialed availability right back…
      But I’ll keep looking!

      • RdM says:

        Red Sun Tobacco

        The utter antithesis to low nicotine tobacco.

        • RdM says:

          You can view the full size image by opening it in a new tab…

        • RdM says:

          Unfortunately since tinypic shut down every link anybody used them for has been replaced with the above. Trying a replacement…

        • RdM says:

          The reason I went researching this again (low nic cigarettes) is because today the zealots (ASH, Cancer Society, others) have got the NZ Government to announce its new bolder moves toward “Smokefree 2025” …

          “The Government is considering gradually increasing the legal age of cigarette purchases, among a raft of other proposals, to meets its Smokefree 2025 goal.

          The other proposals include reducing nicotine in smoked products to “very low levels”, prohibiting cigarette filters, setting a minimum price for tobacco to make it less affordable and outlawing innovations aimed at increasing appeal.”

          “One of the proposals is restricting sales to a limited number of store types to make it substantially more difficult to buy cigarettes. The result would be to reduce uptake by young people and support smokers who are trying to quit.

          Those stores could also be required to be licenced to sell tobacco products, like how vaping retailers now have to apply become specialist vape retailers (SVRs).

          New Zealand currently has no restrictions on where tobacco can be sold. At least 80 percent of it is sold through convenience stores, service stations, on-licensed premises and supermarkets. An estimated 5000 to 8000 retail outlets sell tobacco in New Zealand.

          Another proposal is to link the number of retailers in an area to its population size and density to reduce the number of retail outlets selling smoked tobacco and make it more difficult to buy cigarettes.

          Tobacco retail outlets are highly concentrated in more disadvantaged neighbourhoods; their density is about four times greater in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods compared with the most advantaged neighbourhoods.

          It’s all over the news outlets and radio, sometimes seeming presented as a done deal (the old confidence trick) but it’s actually an announcement of a consultation process with ability to make submissions.

  3. Fredrik Eich says:

    Well I left a comment on that site. All my arguments were backed up with sources. It lasted 40 minutes in moderation and never made it any further. The truth hurts!

  4. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Totally agree Frank. Cigarettes are weak enough now. I miss a proper Capstan Full Strength et al. Remember Boyard in France. Wow proper cigs eh ! These arrogant twats need to leave our beloved tobacco alone and the Tobacco companies need to get some balls !

    • waltc says:

      Try Nat Sherman’s. They’re also all natural with no additives (tho govt now prevents them from saying so!!) and further are “fire safe’ w/o added chemicals but simply by using rice paper. When the loathesome Altria took them over, I called and adked if they were changing or had changed tbe brand and they said no –not only didn’t they want to but that by law (law again) they couldn’t w/o having to go thru a long testing and re-permitting process

  5. Rose says:

    I don’t want their “lower-risk nicotine delivery products.” I like traditional cigarettes, and traditional smoke. And also I don’t believe that traditional cigarettes are in the least bit “deadly”. I’ve been smoking them all my life without suffering any harm

    Frank, please bear with me on this train of thought.

    I was watching that Love it or Hate it Marmite advert last night and it occured to me that all this might have been started originally by a very few people like the infamous Dr W, trying to justify their own strong reactions because they were so far from normal.

    I had regarded the Love it or Hate it campaign as a bit of fun, now I’m not so sure.

    Marmite Gene Project

    Surprisingly it appears that to some people Marmite tastes bitter!
    I love the smell of tobacco smoke and I enjoy the taste of Marmite, if it’s well diluted with unsalted butter. My personal peculiarity is that I don’t like the taste of salt and Marmite thickly spread as everybody else has it tastes way too salty to me, which I am quite aware is an illusion.

    What if Dr W and co were suffering from a similar illusion and every smoky room smelt bitter and hostile rather than fragrant and friendly?

    Marmite: love it or hate it? New study reveals it’s down to your genes
    “It may also have some surprising health benefits, with studies showing that the yeast extract could even help to stave off dementia or prevent birth defects.”
    http: //

    Marmite: the latest superfood?
    “According to research in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, high doses of niacin (or vitamin B3), one of the main ingredients in Marmite, help boost the body’s defences against staphylococcus bacteria. In tests, concentrated niacin – which produces neutrophils, a white blood cell that fights bacteria – increased our immune system’s ability to kill different strains of the bugs by up to 1,000 times”
    http: //

    Could a teaspoon of Marmite a day protect your brain?

    “New research suggests that eating a teaspoon of Marmite a day may improve brain function and potentially ward off neurological disorders.

    The study, published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, monitored the brain activity of 28 volunteers using electroencephalography scans. The researchers, from York University, found that eating a teaspoon of the yeast extract a day for a month improved the brain’s response to visual patterns by 30 per cent.

    It is the presence of vitamin B12 in Marmite which appears to increase levels of a neurotransmitter in the brain called gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). The researchers also found that Marmite contains 116 times more B12 than peanut butter. B12 supplements have been suggested by some medical bodies as a way to protect the ageing brain.”
    https: //

    Australian scientists pioneer Vegemite breakthrough that could prevent thousands of miscarriages

    “AUSTRALIA’S favourite spread is behind what could be the nation’s greatest ever medical achievement, after scientists made a breakthrough expected to prevent thousands of miscarriages and birth defects.
    The cure is remarkably simple — a common dietary supplement that contains niacin, one of the key elements of Vegemite.”

    “Professor Sally Dunwoodie from the Victor Chang Institute has identified a major cause of miscarriages as well as heart, spinal, kidney and cleft palate problems in newborn babies.
    “The ramifications are likely to be huge. This has the potential to significantly reduce the number of miscarriages and birth defects around the world and I do not say those words lightly,” Prof Dunwoodie said.

    Every year 7.9 million babies are born with a birth defect worldwide and one-in-four pregnant women will suffer a miscarriage in Australia. In the vast majority of cases the cause of these problems has remained a mystery. Until now.

    “The landmark study found that a deficiency in a vital molecule, known as NAD, prevents a baby’s organs from developing correctly in the womb.
    Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) is one of the most important molecules in all living cells. NAD synthesis is essential for energy production, DNA repair and cell communication. Disrupting its production causes a NAD deficiency.
    The Victor Chang researchers have found this deficiency is particularly harmful during a pregnancy as it cripples an embryo when it is forming.”

    “However, a recent study found that despite taking vitamin supplements at least a third of pregnant women have low levels of vitamin B3 in their first trimester, which is the critical time in organ development.
    By the third trimester, vitamin B3 levels were low in 60 per cent of pregnant women. Researchers said this indicated pregnant women may require more vitamin B3 than is available in most vitamin supplements.”

    My question is, do genuine anti-smokers, not the trained ones, hate even the smell of Marmite too?

    In regards to my studies on the actions of niacin, another study I would like to see done is who suffers from more cancerous mutations, coffee or tea drinkers or is there no difference?

    Mapping the role of NAD metabolism in prevention and treatment of carcinogenesis

    “Studies presented here show that cellular NAD, which we hypothesize to be the relevant biomarker of niacin status, is significantly lower in humans than in the commonly studied animal models of carcinogenesis. We show that nicotinamide and the resulting cellular NAD concentration modulate expression of the tumor suppressor protein, p53, in human breast, skin, and lung cells. Studies to determine the optimal NAD concentrations for responding to DNA damage in breast epithelial cells reveal that DNA damage appears to stimulate NAD biosynthesis and that recovery from DNA damage occurs several hours earlier in the presence of higher NAD or in cells undergoing active NAD biosynthesis. Finally, analyses of normal human skin tissue from individuals diagnosed with actinic keratoses or squamous cell carcinomas show that NAD content of the skin is inversely correlated with the malignant phenotype. Since NAD is important in modulating ADP-ribose polymer metabolism, cyclic ADP-ribose synthesis, and stress response proteins, such as p53, following DNA damage, understanding how NAD metabolism is regulated in the human has important implications in developing both prevention and treatment strategies in carcinogenesis.”

    “The association of lower NAD with malignancy in skin supports the hypothesis that niacin maybe an important preventive factor in cancer.”
    http: //

    • Frank Davis says:

      What if Dr W and co were suffering from a similar illusion and every smoky room smelt bitter and hostile rather than fragrant and friendly?

      It could be something like that. I remember once in my university days being asked to try a sip of some chemical or other, because apparently some people could taste it, and some couldn’t. I took a sip, and tasted nothing. But remembered the odd event.

      Mind you, not all smoky rooms smell fragrant. There have been a couple of occasions on which even I have been driven out of small, crowded, smoke-filled pubs.

    • Tony says:

      Frederick, perhaps I should post this on your blog but maybe there’s a simple explanation.
      The figure of 39. 4% of the US population being current cigarette smokers looks very odd. I reckon the anti-smoking industry’s figures tend to underestimate the number but I think they claim less than 20% which is hard to reconcile.
      I’ve probably missed something but it doesn’t look right to me. I’ll keep looking though.

      • Fredrik Eich says:

        Yup, those figures were a bit of a surprise to me too. I am not sure about them either. But I think the important number is never smokers. If roughly 1 in 5 people are never smokers and 1 in 5 lung cancers occur in never smokers then that is a rather startling finding.

        I don’t actually think former smokers are at higher risk of lung cancer, I think there is just no real difference. I can’t find that recent study of MRI scans that showed no difference between smokers and non-smokers, I think it was in Japan and the people studying the MRI scans did not know the smoking status of the people that the scans belonged to. It was posted in the comments in Franks blog once but I have not managed to find it since – which is irritating!

        • Frank Davis says:

          I don’t actually think former smokers are at higher risk of lung cancer

          There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that smoking is actually protective against lung cancer, so that giving up increases the likehood of getting it. See my post Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

        • giving up increases the likehood of getting it.

          From what I’ve read so far, I’d say that increased stress levels following smoking cessation (i.e. the loss of a valuable antidepressant), accelerate the incidence rate of LC, not the lifetime risk of getting it.

      • Fredrik Eich says:

        This was how the questions were asked “Respondents are asked if they currently smoke cigarettes every day, some days or not at all. Respondents were also asked if they have ever smoked 100 cigarettes in their lifetime. ”
        So I think the number for never smokers may be good because I think most people know if they have smoked more than 100 cigarettes. But I am still surprised that that number is so low. But in the other hand the number of my friends that have never smoked 100 ciggies is very small indeed.

        • Philip Neal says:

          Fredrik,you will be doing us all a favour if you list your data sources from which your graphics are derived. You have an interesting blog but it is not easy to reproduce your work.

      • Tony says:

        I think I can see what they’ve messed up. They’ve mixed up the US current smoker percentage with the never smoker one. Ie the current US smoker %age should read 22.2 and the never smoker %age 39.4. Their figures now add up OK.

        BTW the third column is just a sample size weighted average of the two earlier columns. I cannot see any reason for this to be associated with a statistical significance. Their footnote says “* Statistical significance at the 0.05 alpha level is based on independent 2-sample t-test, Kruskal–Wallis H tests, and Chi-square tests
        I suspect this phrase just dropped out of their software and they blindly copied it in.

        Here’s the figures from figure 1. 1st column Canada, 2nd US, 3rd total.
        Current smoker 25.9 39.4 23.7*
        Former smoker 44.5 38.5 40.9*
        Never smoker 29.6 22.2 35.4*

        • Fredrik Eich says:

          Ah, That is interesting and well spotted.
          I shall take a peek and adjust.

        • Fredrik Eich says:

          I have removed that post in the mean time!

        • Fredrik Eich says:

          Tony, I think you are absolutely right, they have swapped the numbers in that study

          They did it in the text too
          “The US has more current smokers than Canada (39.4% vs. 25.9%) while Canada has more former (44.5% vs. 38.5%), and never smokers (29.6% vs. 22.2%) than the US.”
          I still think it important that if the figure of 22.2% for current smokers is correct (and I think it is), it is still the case that 21% of LC occurs in current smokers which was the thrust of my post. But thanks for pointing it out, I like to get my facts right, I shall have to find another source and rewrite the blog post.

        • Tony says:

          Frederick, glad to have been of service. I think you’re onto something with this so I’m looking forward to seeing your updated post.

        • Fredrik Eich says:

          I have sent an email to the author seeking clarification.
          But I shall re-post it at some point whatever happens.

          I remember is was your eagle eye that pointed out that Doll failed to mention in his
          London Hospital Study that he excluded non-smoking cancer patients from the results but mentioned it later in oral histories. That is a clear case of cheating in my book. He must of known at the time that they were mostly non-smokers – so why did he not state it in the study text!?

          Thanks again for your help!

  6. Joe L. says:

    Today the FDA released their “initial review” of these iQOS contraptions, and all signs point to a forthcoming verdict that they are “safer” than traditional cigarettes:

    FDA releases initial review of Philip Morris’ iQOS device

    Does anyone know exactly how long the FDA has been studying these devices? It can’t be much longer than a couple years. However, for decades, Tobacco Control has been scaring the public into believing that “smoking-related illnesses” can take upwards of 30 years to manifest.

    Therefore, I must ask just how the FDA can come to such a conclusion so quickly without attempting to replicate one of the supposed “benchmark” studies that have been so crucial in propagandizing the Antismoking movement?

    For a tobacco-related product developed by a “Big Tobacco” company, it sure seems like iQOS is getting fast-tracked through the regulatory process. As with all Antismoking-related news, I smell a rat here. Has Philip Morris made some back-room deal with the Pharmaceutical industry to share profits on this technology? I think we need to dig deeper.

  7. Smoking Lamp says:

    I have no problem with people choosing alternatives to smoking such as vaping or heat-not-burn devices. I do have a problem with that choice being eliminated and forced upon individuals. The tobacco control lies have gone too far. The evidence linking smoking with lung cancer and any other disease is suspect and much of it appears to be outright lies and manipulations at worst and fraught with confounders and biases at best. Tobacco control must be destroyed.

  8. tjelly2 says:

    “But these busybodies don’t hate just the tobacco industry. They hate all industry.”

    Not quite – you may have noticed they never hate the pharmaceutical industry.

  9. Pingback: Missive From ‘Merica: Hook, Line & Syncher – Library of Libraries

  10. Smoking Lamp says:

    Except nicotine isn’t actually addictive: “The reports of US Surgeon General on smoking are considered the authoritative statement on the scientific state of the art in this field. The previous report on nicotine addiction published in 1988 is one of the most cited references in scientific articles on smoking and often the only citation provided for specific statements of facts regarding nicotine addiction. In this commentary we review the chapter on nicotine addiction presented in the recent report of the Surgeon General. We show that the nicotine addiction model presented in this chapter, which closely resembles its 22 years old predecessor, could only be sustained by systematically ignoring all contradictory evidence. As a result, the present SG’s chapter on nicotine addiction, which purportedly “documents how nicotine compares with heroin and cocaine in its hold on users and its effects on the brain,” is remarkably biased and misleading.”

    Hanan Frank, Rueven Dar. If the data contradict the theory, throw out the data: Nicotine addiction in the 2010 report of the Surgeon General. Harm Reduct J. 2011; 8: 12.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      More evidence smoking isn’t addictive: In the study, the authors examined the effects of smoking deprivation, anticipation of smoking, and actual smoking on the craving to smoke. Flight attendants who were light to heavy smokers rated their craving to smoke at predetermined time points during a 2-way short flight (each leg 3-5.5 hr) and a 1-way long flight (8-13 hr). In both short and long flights, craving increased gradually and peaked as landing approached. Craving levels at the end of the 1st leg of the short flights were equal to those at the end of the long flight and were much higher than those at the parallel time point in the long flight. In the short flight, craving levels at the beginning of the 2nd leg dropped relative to the end of the 1st leg, both for participants who smoked during the intermission and for those who did not, though the drop was steeper for the former. The results provide additional evidence for the role of psychological factors in determining the craving to smoke in a naturalistic setting.

      Dar R, Rosen-Korakin N, Shapira O, Gottlieb Y, Frenk H.The craving to smoke in flight attendants: relations with smoking deprivation, anticipation of smoking, and actual smoking.J Abnorm Psychol. 2010 Feb;119(1):248-53.

    • RdM says:

      Also see:
      Dale M. Atrens: Nicotine as an Addictive Substance (2001)

      Click to access Nicotine-as-an-Addictive-Substance-A-Critical-Examination-of-the-Basic-Concepts-and-Empirical-Evidence1.pdf

      and an earlier piece of his , from 2000 (held at Forces)
      Drug Addiction as Demonic Possession

      Click to access demonic_possession.pdf

    • RdM says:

      Also read:

      A Critique Of Nicotine Addiction

      Click to access 2002-frenkdar.pdf

      and read further at

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.