You will be surprised by the information offered here. However, there is a very high probability that you believe any defense of smoking is mere rationalization induced by addiction. You might even be a self-loathing smoker in which case you might need to visit the ASDS recovery pages. Assuming that you are generally of a healthy mindset and simply need to question some of the "facts" that you've been told too many times, this is a good time to begin questioning those hard-and-fast beliefs and apply a little common sense.
First, consider what you've been told about the deadly effects of tobacco. For decades, we've been told that people who smoke have a much greater likelihood of contracting and dying from cancer. Nowadays, we are told emphatically that secondhand smoke is equally deadly. (Some will say that secondhand smoke is worse than smoking...but that would be an argument to start smoking, wouldn't it.) Yet, for the last century or so, smoking has been very prevalent in public and in homes. So, for all those years that people were regularly exposed to secondhand smoke, why were the statistics supposedly so ominous for people who smoke if nonsmokers were dying of the same tobacco-related diseases? Common sense tells us that either nonsmokers are unaffected by SHS, which would cause the death rates for smokers to appear greater, or all those years of telling us that smokers are statistically condemned to early deaths has been hogwash. That should be a big blip on your skeptical radar.
To read some actual true facts about smoking and living long, click here.- You've undoubtedly heard that nicotine is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. We're also told that nicotine is found in secondhand smoke. So, why aren't there hordes of people trying to get their "SHS fix" like heroin addicts? Again, common sense should be telling you that something is amiss.
To read some facts about nicotine and addiction, click here.
Now, consider how you, as someone who smokes, have been portrayed as a monster blowing smoke in the faces of innocent bystanders everywhere. To counter this ludicrous portrayal, a good place to start is actually cemeteries! Specifically, when is the last time you smoked in a cemetery? Do you refrain from smoking in cemeteries out of concern for the health of the inhabitants? Of course not, that is absurd. For those of a Christian bent, how many "No smoking" signs have you seen in church sanctuaries? Yet, people don't light-up during the sermon, do they? Alas, the church sanctuary example is now obsolete--at least in Britain. Read all about it in "Churches incensed by 'stop smoking' signs" (15/05/2007). (If the hyperlink doesn't work for you, view the screenshot.) Even the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company tells people who smoke to behave themselves, so to speak, but not one organization tells antismokers to mind their manners toward people who smoke!CEMETERIES
I will say that I have a friend who has smoked in cemeteries. No, she is not a ghoul or a monster or crass or even impolite. She is a genealogist. I am recalling a Blue Collar Comedy sketch, "You might be a redneck if...you've ever popped a beer during a eulogy!" Now, this friend could be a redneck, except that I recall a similar sketch, "You might be a redneck if...you're family tree goes straight up." That wouldn't require much genealogy. So, either this friend is a very bored redneck genealogist smoking cigarettes in a cemetery or my etiquette rules need to be updated!Rise above the rudeness of the common people and develop your own brand of smoker's etiquette. Respect others and respect yourself.
- There is a gross misrepresentation that people have not confronted. Specifically, have you ever seen one of those posters that says, "This is the lung of a nonsmoker. This is the lung of someone who smokes a pack a day." The GRAPHIC image gets embedded into your psyche even though it doesn't make 100% sense. The idea is that the tar of tobacco gets into the lungs and colors them black. (By the way, if the black tobacco tar gets inside the lungs, then why is the outside of the lungs black in those pictures?) Well, have you ever seen tobacco stains in, say, an old smoking room. Someplace people smoked for decades and the wall or ceiling got discolored. Ask yourself, what color was the stain? Was it BLACK like the tar from tobacco is supposed to be? Of course not; the stain tends to be yellowish and, even then, only after many, many years of exposure to heavy smoke. Many people assume that tar from tobacco is BLACK, like the tar used to pave streets. But, from what you've actually seen in your life, that doesn't make much sense, does it.
WebMistress: I, personally, was..."told" by a rAtni that all smokers have black lungs because tar from smoking gets stuck on the lungs. (I use the term "told" loosely. He was throwing one of those irrational ASDS tantrums at the time.) Clearly, that isn't true. When backed into a corner by simple common sense, a rAnti might tell you that the BLACK lung is the result of tissue damage done by smoking. Well, again, let's use a little common sense. If lung tissue is damaged, not oxygenated and healthy pink, then the tissue will die and turn black. Now, we all know nonsmokers can get lung cancer and smokers don't always get lung cancer. In other words, a nonsmoker with lung cancer will have a black lung and a smoker without lung cancer will have a pink lung. If the smoker dies in, say, a car accident, then the smokers pink lung can be transplanted into the nonsmoker. ( **For the record, the smoker WILL have more of a powerful antioxidant in reduced form surrounding the lung and that might translate to an added advantange for the transplant recipient at least in the short term.) Yes, that's right. Smokers' lungs can be used for transplants--and it's, frankly, common sense. ** From "Normal alveolar epithelial lining fluid contains high levels of glutathione"
The abstract states:"Compared with nonsmokers, cigarette smokers had 80% higher levels of ELF total glutathione, 98% of which was in the reduced form. Studies of cultured lung epithelial cells and fibroblasts demonstrated that these concentrations of reduced glutathione were sufficient to protect these cells against the burden of H2O2 in the range released by alveolar macrophages removed from the lower respiratory tract of nonsmokers and smokers, respectively, suggesting that the glutathione present in the alveolar ELF of normal individuals likely contributes to the protective screen against oxidants in the extracellular milieu of the lower respiratory tract."
"Smoker's Lung Transplanted to a Nonsmoker". LEILA JOHN MARQUES, HELMUT TESCHLER, JOSUNE GUZMAN, and ULRICH COSTABEL. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., Volume 156, Number 5, November 1997, 1700-1702. http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/156/5/1700 From the abstract: We had the unique opportunity to investigate a 51-yr-old never-smoker after single lung transplantation (TX) for 1-antitrypsin deficiency emphysema who received a donor's lung from a heavy cigarette smoker.
From the Introduction:Inhaled particles in cigarette smoke are phagocytosed by alveolar macrophages (AM) and lead to characteristic morphologic changes. AM from cigarette smokers are more numerous, larger in size, frequently multinucleated, and contain characteristic dark basophilic smoker's inclusion bodies within the cytoplasm as a result of ingestion of inhaled smoke particulates (1).
This particulate business lends credence to the idea that one of the real dangers from tobacco products is not so much from the tobacco as from defective filters, and possibly papers. (On a personal note, I also contend that tobacco is an agricultural product and, therefore, subject to the ills of...well, dangerous farming practices. Please see Smokers' Paradoxes for more information about actual health benefits and dangers.)Another important note on this artcle is the date: 1997 Even as late as few a months ago, I remember reading questions from people wondering whether or not a smoker's lung could ever be used as a transplant to a nonsmoker. Common sense tells us that a healthy lung is pink and a diseased lung is not; ergo, a healthy lung from a smoker can be (and has been) transplanted into a nonsmoker.
While we're at it, why is it that many countries with the lowest smoking prevalence have the highest lung cancer incidence and make particular note of the abysmal figures for the US? And, those old posters that supposedly compared a smoker's lung to a nonsmoker's lung? Rumor has it that the black lung was actually taken from someone who had worked in coal mines just to make the GRAPHIC impression more prominent--mind you, that's just a rumor. Also, beware that the poor health resulting from this antismoking propaganda (AKA the "Witch Doctor Effect") can be very real and very deadly
***** RUMORS *****
From NEWMAN JK, REISS OK, VATTER AE. "INVESTIGATIONS OF THE BLACK PIGMENT IN HUMAN LUNG." Medicina thoracalis, 1965;22:347-53:The black pigment of the human lung has been examined chemically and with the electron microscope. A method has been developed for the isolation of this pigment by means of dissection followed by enzymatic digestion. It is a mixture of inorganic materials (silicates, aluminates, and other trace metals), some elemental carbon, and a highly insoluble pigment, probably organic in nature. Because of the extreme insolubility of the pigment, it has not been possible to characterize it further chemically. Electron microscopic evidence suggests the lung pigments are associated with the lysosomal particles of the cell. Comparison of the composition of lung pigment with the medical history of the individual has failed to reveal any correlation in the group studied. When the case histories of the patients, their smoking histories, and their occupations were compared with the patterns of lung pigments observed in the electron microscope, no correlation was found between them.
Photocopies of this reference can be found in tobaccodocuments at http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/515590952-0962.html This link will only show pages 1-10 of 11. Re-load to show 1-11 of 11 and the final page will have the references. The very FIRST reference is Rosen, G.: The History of Miners' Diseases, New York: Schuman's, 1943. I repeat that the coal miner's lung substitution in these exhibits is merely a rumor. However, another rumor has more validity. It's sounds juvenile if not downright crazy, but a little research shows that it is true. Specifically, these horror shows given by antismoking groups--the ones that give nightmares to young children--are truly a ridiculous hoax. An actual exchange took place on an actual medical lisetserve, tagged "ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions." The initial request was from Gwendolyn Casazza:*****************************************************************************
The reply came from Joe Ruggiero:
Hello, colleagues.
I am looking for a freeze-dried lung cross section that:1. belongs to either a dog, sheep, pig, or other similar mammal
Any ideas where I could find this?
2. has been chemically treated to resemble a smoker's lung
3. is relatively inexpensive (under $50)
Thanks for your help!Gwendolyn
Carolina Biological has something like what you want - but it ain't cheap! 200 bucks. Science Kit and Boreal Laboratories is another. And there are several other similar companies that also have these 'prepared' specimens, of various types. You can also look at specimens of 'healthy lungs' and 'smokers longs' on prepared microscope slides. These are certainly cheaper but much more 'abstract.'
While Associate Director of the Flandrau Science Center in Tucson several years ago I did a set of 'tobacco' related exhibits funded by the state department of health. I initially looked at using these lungs as part of an exhibit, along with a number of the other 'usual' suspects for an anti-tobacco exhibit. Upon review, I decided not to go with them. First of all, these were pig's or sheep's lungs ~ 'how did they get those pigs to smoke?' I wondered. Well, stupid me. They didn't, of course. These are chemically simulated smoker's lungs. I reasoned that using chemically simulated smokers lungs and trying to pass them off as the lungs of real smokers was essentially lying to our visitors and I just couldn't do it. I mean, what would the sign say about these lungs? I did go with a WentzScope and a set of microscope slides though. - Finally, consider the rationale behind smoking bans. Experts--many from charities like the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association--have testified that thousands or even tens of thousands of nonsmokers will die from tobacco-related diseases in the next few decades as a result of working in smoky environments. Again, just think about this for a moment. Experts from charities battling diseases are telling us that they won't be able to do any better in treating these diseases in the coming decades than they are doing now. Given the obscene amounts of money that tobacco companies have paid to governments supposedly to cover the costs of treating tobacco-related diseases plus the equally obscene amounts of money funneled through these charities, there is an obvious way for people to cover the medical costs--stop giving money to charities whose experts have testified that they will not be able to handle diseases any better than they are doing today! If you'd care to see where your money paid through tobacco products has gone, take a look at Where has the MSA Money Gone?" The one that got me the most was golf carts in New York!
While we're on the topic of all those experts so eager to push smoking bans based on testimony declaring their own incompetence in fighting the diseases they are funded to fight, you might want to question their true motivation. Again, common sense tells us that either tobacco is deadly or it is not. If tobacco is not deadly, then there is no reason to outlaw its use on the grounds of health concerns. Yet, that is exactly what experts have been claiming that we should do (for the sake of health). If tobacco is deadly, then it should be outlawed. Well, one state, North Dakota attempted to do just that--ban the sales and use of tobacco products. Any guesses as to which groups testified against the ban on tobacco? See NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Tobacco ban gets lit up in House. According to the Grand Forks Herald:
[Rep. Wes] Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.
There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued. The ban also could take away certain funding for these groups for tobacco control programs.Of course, these groups have other financial incentives to make sure that tobacco sales do not decline. Try "Smoking bans: Good public policy? Or simply a great pharmaceutical marketing plan?" for a start--but, make no mistake, there is more (MUCH more) on the financial shenanigans of antismoking.
It's high time that you started to seriously question the wisdom of the supposedly hard-and-true facts that you've been indoctrinated to believe, isn't it.
Most people who do not smoke are initially indifferent about smoking status. Eventually, certain antismoking-driven sectors of society give them an ego boost based on their nonsmoking status. Usually, by the time they've discovered how destructive the movement really is, they've lost friends, family, jobs, self-respect and much more. Kudos to those who've wised-up before they've lost their shirts or reaped the sour fruits of antismokers' unintended consequences. Oddly enough, many people who smoke--pipe smokers, cigar smokers, occasional smokers, closet smokers and secret smokers--count themselves as nonsmokers and lose just as much as regular nonsmokers. In any case, you, as a nonsmoker, are not alone in opposing smoking bans and other machinations of the antismoking brigade; for a start, see Freedom to Choose A Personal View (2007-05-29) written by Bob Feal-Martinez, who is also a nonsmoker. Better yet, try Repeal smoking ban for sake of pals, also written by a nonsmoker, on the unconstitutionality of Florida's smoking ban (Amendment 6 to the Florida Constitution, approved by voters in November 2002 and effective in 2003) and laments, The price to be "smoke-free" has been paid for by the abrupt separation of friends and neighbors.
Some of the main areas of loss from antismoking are:
- Slippery Slope --
We hear this an awful lot!! In fact, we hear about the slippery slope so much that we eventually become numb to its meaning. However, in the case of smoking bans, we're already going down the slope...rapidly. Look at it this way: If you can justify snubbing your nose at a quarter of the adult population over something like smoking, then society can easily justify re-classifying you as a non-citizen over an equally absurd characteristic whether or not you believe that characteristic is particularly "dirty" or "stinky". I know a woman who is as close to antismoking as you can get without becoming a raving rAnti, but this woman decided she opposed smoking bans when she realized that the banning hysteria was threatening her Girl Scout cookies in the name of preventing child obesity! If you think we aren't already sliding swiftly down this slippery slope, then take a look at this sign of the times (Thanks, SanFrancisco from The Big Debate). Also, read an article written by a surgeon on the dangers of following corrupt healthism into a nanny state, "The Slippery Slope of Nanny-State Politics". I will also mention an organization, Freedom2Choose, that is fighting the smoking ban in England via Judicial Review. F2C was headed by a nonsmoker but has gone through some changes and, when trying to go to their website, I got to this blog that now reads:Webmistress: When I sold my condo, dozens of parties came to look at the place and not one person guessed that the inhabitant was a smoker. Mind you, those people were really looking through everything, including closets and drawers. However, a couple of people did correctly guess that I was a cat owner. So much for dirty, stinky smokers. Now, stinky cat owners might be a different story; see this short story. For those who are beyond this nasty name-calling toward people who smoke, you might enjoy tobacco scented candles. Welcome to my personal Freedom2Choose web blog, kindly set up for me by Dave Cheetham. Over the next few weeks and months many things will be happening to the pub industry and to the wider public. These will include tighter controls on Alcohol, and controls on the foods we eat as well as greater controls on smoking and related matters. The fight for justice for all from smokers, their non smoking friends will continue by others, but my focus will now be towards Licensing issues.
If you still believe that this antismoking hysteria hasn't threatened your freedom and livelihood, then think again. - Your Health -- For decades, society has smugly bombarded people who smoke with graphic (and often misleading) language and images of death and disease. The net result is often a "witch doctor effect." This psychological curse or "hex effect" is as deadly as anything, promoting ill health the same way that a witch doctor induces disease and death on a victim by conning that victim into believing in the curse. What many nonsmokers have failed to realize is that the very same attack is now being made on them. However, at this stage, we would be more accurate to say that nonsmokers are falling ill due to the nocebo effect and mass psycho-genic illness, which entails both a psychological curse and side effects from unnecessary drugs. (The usual progression is a fake cough that turns into a real cough that leads to a prescription that leads to side effects that...et cetera.) In short, if you haven't figured it out by now, this antismoking movement that once made you feel so special for your nonsmoking status is attacking your health as well as the health of those you love. If you really need an ego boost, rise above the antismoking movement and show the world how smart and healthy you really are!
- Economic Loss --
The examples here are endless. From one somewhat humorous article, Smoke ban inspires 'who's on 1st' routine (April 28, 2007):One Example of Cold Hard Facts: The English smoking ban experiment began on July 1 2007.
Share price on June 28 2007:
Enterprise Inns 690p
Greene King 992p
JD Wetherspoon 544.5p
Marstons 400.75p
Mitchells & Butlers 880p
Punch Taverns 1235p
Whitbread 1791p
Young & Co 3030p
Share price on November 30 2007:
Enterprise Inns 531.5p
Greene King 810p
JD Wetherspoon 395.25p
Marstons 326p
Mitchells & Butlers 571p
Punch Taverns 825.5p
Whitbread 1460p
Young & Co 2163p
Percentage difference:
Enterprise Inns -22.97%
Greene King -18.34%
JD Wetherspoon -27.41%
Marstons -18.65%
Mitchells & Butlers -35.11%
Punch Taverns -34.11%
Whitbread -18.48%
Young & Co -28.61%
The above figures speak for themselves.
See UK's largest pub operator goes into the red (inre Mitchells & Butlers; Dec 10 2007). Keep an eye out for those "carefully chosen" words.
WebMistress: Thanks to CWA and Colin at F2C.And from Richardson family gamble on Rank (Monday, 10th December 2007): "Shares in Rank have fallen 57pc in the past year after trading was hit by the smoking ban and tighter regulation of slot machines."
I ask Karen Smith, 42, who has worked the bar at the Top Sirloin for 12 years if her health has improved in the nine months she has worked behind the smoke-free bar.
She just laughed.
"I never minded it. Now, I just make less money. Maybe they were protecting me from financial health."For a well-educated run-down of the smoking ban scam written by a nonsmoker, I highly recommend "Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies". This nonsmokers' blog dissects and exposes the gross falsehoods popularized by antismoking campaigns to enact costly smoking bans. He also exposes the profiteering racket behind promoting smoking bans, "The case against smoking bans, part 2". I also highly recommend "Smoking bans: Good public policy? Or simply a great pharmaceutical marketing plan?". (Notice that this man is very knowledgeable about air filtration as well!) So, you see, as a nonsmoker opposing smoking bans, you are in no way alone!
Again, the list of economic damages is endless. You can read more about lost jobs and who's reaping the rewards of smoking bans. (WebMistress: Alas, these pages for the economic pitfalls and the financial motivation behind antismoking are...quite lengthy. They will be under construction for a while. Please, bear with me.)A few interesting articles:
- Clearing the Haze? New Evidence on the Economic Impact of Smoking Bans -- By Michael R. Pakko for The Regional Economist, January 2008. Don't miss the SIDEBAR: District Focus: Smoking Ban Singes Columbia, Mo. (Michael R. Pakko is an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. To see more of Pakko’s work, go to http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/pakko/index.html .)
- ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES
- Quebec's no-smoking law hurts bars, bingos, owners say (CBC News, Thursday, May 31, 2007, 2:42 PM ET)
- The Economic Impact of the New York State Smoking Ban on New York’s Bars -- prepared by Ridgewood Economic Associates, Ltd.(REA)
- The invisible damage done by Charleston's smoking ban BY JACK HUNTER (APRIL 9, 2008, Charleston City Paper)
- Economic Losses Due To Smoking Bans "It does not take a tornado to make fireplace smoke go up your chimney, and it does not take a tornado to keep secondhand smoke out of the nonsmoking section of a restaurant" - David W. Kuneman
- Ameristar rethinks expansion because of proposed smoking ban (Thursday, March 20, 2008, COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa, Quad-City Times)-- "The Ameristar Casino in Council Bluffs is rethinking plans for a $100 million expansion _ and a proposed statewide smoking ban is a factor. The expansion, slated to be completed next year, would make room for 600 new slot machines and 20 additional table games. It also would add nearly 100 jobs and 175 construction jobs. But Ameristar spokeswoman Christie Scott says officials need to weigh whether the investment makes sense without a permanent exemption for casinos. The House has voted to allow smoking in bars, restaurants and casinos. The Senate wants to virtually outlaw all indoor smoking. Scott says in states with smoking bans, there has been a negative impact on casino operations. She says she expects a similar result if the Legislature bans smoking in Iowa's casinos. Information from: The Daily Nonpareil, http://www.nonpareilonline.com " WebMistress: But anitmsokers swear that smoking bans are GOOD for business?
- Deterioration of Air Quality -- The Clean Air Quality links above categorically expose the damage done to air quality by antismoking measures. Not only do many antismoking guns denounce air filtration as a means to remove unwanted tobacco smoke from the air, the ensuing smoking bans lead to poor air quality. (Note: Air filtration systems remove more than tobacco smoke from the air. Listen to Norm Kjono being interviewed on The Dangerous Doug Kendall Show. I think that Kjono is also a nonsmoker.) The most obvious instance of plummeting air quality after smoking bans is in the airline industry. At first, smoking/nonsmoking sections were introduced in the seventies. Then, along came the idea to ban smoking on flights less than two hours in the US. Now, we have a completely antismoking industry. Shortly after smoking was banned on all commercial flights, this story ran in The New York Times (June 6, 1993), "Frequent Fliers Saying Fresh Air Is Awfully Thin at 30,000 Feet". (Also, see "Study claims aircraft air quality causes DVT".)
Supposedly, smoking bans on airplanes are to protect our health; yet, nobody needs this protection according to Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany, 1960-1997," American Journal of Epidiemiology, Vol. 156, No. 6, which states on p. 564,
We found a rather remarkably low SMR [Standardized Mortality Ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights.
This study came from the Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, School of Public Health-WHO Collaborating Center, University, Bielefeld, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany. For the record, this is not the only WHO study that "went the wrong way" on secondhand smoke and was suppressed; another large WHO study was eventually brought to mainstream media, and both the study's results and the politics to suppress it are more than interesting.Evidently, people don't need protection from secondhand smoke but we do need protection from poor air quality that results from smoking bans! Other examples abound, but the airline example is probably the most illustrative. (Another reason for using the airline example is that airlines were the first to condition the populace to treat people who smoke with disdain. In 1973, United Airlines introduced smoking and nonsmoking sections. Before long, smoking was banned on flights less than two hours long in the US. Today, we have a completely antismoking industry. More than that, today, we have an industry accustomed to treating ALL customers with disdain--and the "Passengers' Bill of Rights" is quickly gaining popularity. If you can justify treating a quarter or more of the adult population with disdain, then you can easily justify treating everyone in a similar manner. Therefore, this industry also exemplifies the slippery slope problem of antismoking as well as the perversion of science and the deterioration of air quality.) Smoking bans result in poor economy and, therefore, companies begin to scrimp on ventilation among other things.
Perversion of Science -- (WebMistress: Again, there is so much information and there are so many examples that this section is simply much too lengthy. Again, I ask that you bear with me. I will note that the problem of length in this section is a result of one of the symptoms of ASDS--namely, impaired cognitive ability. I'll just get you started with a couple of tidbits.)For more lists of the scientific scandals, see SmokeScam, FORCES International - Scientific Portal (WARNING: Quite substantial. Takes time to go through it all.) and The Facts About Secondhand Smoke. My own compilation is quite lengthy as well. However, more information about tobacco and smoking is provided in the Must Reads.
As a nonsmoker, you are most directly affected by the perversion of science in relation to SHS/ETS. Bear in mind the articles "Warning: the health police can seriously addle your brain" and "Second-hand Smoke is Harmful to Science."
Fortunately, these painful consequences can be off-set. Don't be too hard on yourself if you've been conned into the antismoking crusade because it was all done with Smoke and Mirrors. Try some Political Empowerment and a little good old fashioned Socializing.
Life is a dance! Join the Party!
Most people oppose smoking bans. This is not a fact often declared in the common media outlets for economic reasons. Although people who smoke constitute a very large minority, the majority of the population opposes smoking bans. This is evident in most polls taken, including polls on the web. Here are two polls taken at random from the web, each shown in a screenshot. The first screenshot contains the results of a poll run by a newspaper. The poll consistently showed a large majority opposing bans; however, I will note that the screenshot was taken after it had been running for a few days but before it had closed. The second screenshot is a national poll taken at vote-dot-com in response to Senator Clinton's declaration that she would push for a national smoking ban as President of the US. Maybe Senator Clinton should take a look at this poll? Common sense tells us that there must be a fairly large percentage of the nonsmoking population opposing smoking bans. |
So, you've been an antismoker, possibly all your life to bring you here. But, something has happened to introduce doubt into your mind about these staunchly held beliefs. Think you're alone? Not at all, my friend. Countless people have found themselves in just your position.
I have no way of knowing what has happened in your life. Therefore, the best that I can do is show you a few examples of how other antismokers have come to question their beliefs.
- An Everyday Guy -- The first example comes from a comment left in a British newspaper. The article, Anti-smoking groups attack tobacco gel that beats the ban, is about a nicotine gel that can be rubbed on the hands to reduce nicotine craving. No doubt, you've heard of similar devices such as nicotine patches, lozenges and gum. However, the gel is not marketed by a pharmaceutical company such as Johnson and Johnson. Now, pharmaceutical companies have put a great deal of money into promoting smoking bans and much of that money has been funneled through antismoking groups often calling themselves "clean air" groups. These pharmaceutical companies don't want their hard-earned profits going to other companies. The nicotine gel, Nicofix, in this article is sold by shops, including Harrods and Selfridges. As such, the antismoking groups have denounced this product. Adherents to these antismoking groups view the gel as an alternative to secondhand smoke and can't understand the reason that their charity groups are pooh-pooh-ing the gel. As one commentor put it:
I have been a life-long anti-smoker. But this legislation is making me rethink my attitude. Because it is not about the health of non-smokers, as has already been mentioned. It is not even about the health of those who do partake of "the weed", whichever way they imbibe the nicotine. Instead, it is about training the population of the UK to be docile, submissive, and obedient to the dictator who is to follow. This IS all of a piece with the other attacks on civil liberties.
- A Very Smart Man -- You have heard of an Enstrom/Kabat study that showed no harm from secondhand smoke, yes? I'm sure that you have also heard many criticisms of the paper. You've probably heard that Dr. James Enstrom is merely a "shill for Big tobacco." Yet, his research record was clearly what one would call antismoking, publishing many academic papers on the evils of tobacco use. However, when finishing a thirty-year study on the effects of secondhand smoke, based on data gathered by the American Cancer Society, the results "went the wrong way" and the ACS pulled their funding--on the thirty-year study! Enstrom and Kabat finished their study with funding from a group that was merely affiliated with a tobacco company, which comprised a very small percentage of their overall funding. The response from the ACS was to start a HUGE smear campaign! The supposed criticisms were merely childish insults easily refuted by plain and simple facts. One place to see Enstrom's response to the smear campaign is at his Scientific Integrity Institute where he soundly defends his research. Another antismoker, who continues to support smoking bans, is Dr. Michael Siegel, who was very upset by the whole Enstrom/Kabat affair as documented in his Enstrom Cleared of Scientific Misconduct Charges; American Cancer Society Owes Him An Apology.
A note should be made here that Siegel's blog is well done but can become very disheartening. The good doctor documents the more over-the-top activities of the antismoking crusade and the news of such activity is very difficult to read every single day. This is one reason that wispofsmoke is so necessary in today's social climate. The tensions run so high because they are artificially created by corporate machinations. We do need to remember that we are human and we enjoy having fun! The pro-freedom groups are replete with great talent and creative genius that need to be seen and valued. Also, Dr. Siegel's blog the place where a very smart lady first identified ASDS. Thank you, Sunz! Thank you from all of us!
Both Enstrom and Siegel have come to doubt the antismoking movement in one way or another, despite their heavy involvement in the movement and the inception of the modern-day antismoking crusade. Even if you are very smart and well-educated, you might have come to a similar place in your life--and you are not alone!
- Little Puritans and Arrogant Parents -- Some time ago, I was on jury duty and met a woman who was very proud of herself for forcing her (adult) son to refrain from smoking in her home. At the time, I noticed that she was a very tense person, trying to impress people with how upright she was. I considered her attitude toward her son as a measure to exercise authority over someone, probably because she felt powerless in most areas of her life. She absolutely craved attention and respect. Over time, I have come to meet many parents with the same attitudes toward their own children. (Let's not kid ourselves that this attitude is restricted to smoking.) Nowadays, we would all view this as a parent's prerogative and that's that.
Tragically, the antismoking crusade has driven a wedge between too many parents and their adult children. When an adult learns that his/her parent values a completely smoke-free home over the visits of their own child, the adult child will not wish to return. The tactic might work for a while and the children might come home a few times, but that eventually fades.
From the other side of parent/child relationships, we have children being indoctrinated so staunchly into the antismoking crusade at their schools that they are actively taught to be disrespectful of adults who smoke--whether or not the adults are actually smoking around the children. The problem was articulated most succinctly and with great heart by Bob Morris in "The Little Puritans," NY Times, March 11, 2007.
Real Nightmares Many children are indoctrinated into believing that their loved ones and significant others will die horribly before their eyes when they have the occasional smoke. These children are prone to nightmares and other psychological disturbances. Speaking from experience, these nightmares can sometimes be real--and they don't have diddly to do with tobacco.
*** CAUTION *** This is the most destructive aspect of the antismoking crusade: Tearing families apart. Moreover, destroying familial relationships is a known method of introducing tyranny, as described in this blog written from a Christian perspective, which explains:
Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes - be they fascist or communist in nature - have always sought to destroy the traditional family unit by severing the bonds between parents and their children, thereby increasing the power of the government.
As you know, more dramatic measures have been taken by antismokers to destroy families, e.g. denying adoption and custody to parents, criminalizing parents who smoke, et cetera...
Webmistress: I have encountered two raving antismokers who felt the need to join a pro-freedom forum. After some discussion with one, the truth was revealed that she had serious problems in her relationship with her mother...who smoked. The same was true of the other antismoker. I had asked this of a friend once some time ago. I was surprised at how some people developed absolute hatred for tobacco smoke because a family member had smoked. Most people relate happy times to fond remembrances--like a grandparent who smoked a stogie after dinner and told stories to the children. For myself, I have cherished memories surrounding the smell of a good pipe like my father smoked. I couldn't understand the animosity some people had toward their loved ones. Now, I understand that the antismoking movement has created and fed this animosity in some people, encouraging anger and even hatred to fester within families.
It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to [smoke in the air]. -- former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber at a World Health Organization conference in 1975 (This date is NOT a typo) |
Although more examples exist and you might identify more closely with one of those, I hope you see that you are in good company now that you've found the courage and fortitude to question your antismoking beliefs. Of course, one of the main reasons that antismokers learn to distrust the antismoking crusade is that they begin to see the symptoms of ASDS in the people around them. This, of all experiences, can be a very rude awakening. A list of symptoms of ASDS follows. You can undoubtedly see these symptoms in other antismokers. You might have even shared one or more of the symptoms. Rest assured that, once you've identified the symptoms, recovery is just around the corner. So, if you identify a little too closely for your comfort, simply smile and lightly laugh at yourself just the same way that we laugh at some of our old pictures. (Don't get me started on the frosty blue eyeshadow of the seventies and the big hairdos of the eighties!) That's all there is to it. Just smile and let yourself recover.
Recovery begins by identifying and treating the symptoms of ASDS
Once you have determined the underlying cause, you can more honestly address that cause and regain the friends, family and more that you've lost. You'll be surprised at how much people want you to join the party, so to speak, when you've discarded the unpleasantries of antismoking! More than that, you will be pleasantly surprised at the benefits to your health. My best wishes go with you! :-)