Educated Views & Opinions About What Is Wrong With The Anti-Smoking Movement


Virtually every nanny argument can be turned around to demand people eat at home: 

People eat at restaurants because they think it's cool.  It's not, but all the advertising makes them think it is. 
People waste thousands of dollars a year eating out.  What a waste  of money.  I recently heard (no source) that the average Joe spends $1200 a year eating out.  I thought that was high, but then did some 
math, and realized that, in my case, it's pretty conservative.) 

Eating out is unhealthy.  You have no control over the quality of the 
food and what goes on in the kitchen. 
A char broiled steak contains over 4,000 chemical compounds.  Many of them are class A carcinogens. 
Cooks constantly manipulate the level of food on your plate. 

Restaurant portions are far too large, and are therefore unhealthy. 

Restaurant food contains far too much fat. 
Anyone fattening up on restaurant food costs society money. 

Chefs routinely put additives in food to alter the taste. 

People think they're hungry, but they're really just addicted to food.  Eating just satisfies that addiction.  If they'd just stop eating, they'd be uncomfortable for a couple of days, but then the hunger would go away.  (Ask anyone who fasts regularly.) 

Most foodies started their addiction they were children. 

Many restaurants market directly to children. 

DAVE HITT - The Hittman Chronicle


Look, the tobacco companies are/were a legal industry and did nothing any different than any other legal industry does. They answered to their shareholders and it was their job to sell their product. People have known since the 1600's that tobacco can be dangerous to one's health. When I was a kid in the 50's, we called them 'cancer sticks,' and 'coffin nails.' In the late 1800's and for the first two decades of the twentieth century, 14 states prohibited the sale and use of 
tobacco. In 1926 there was a big push to have it banned. This is 
nothing new, and regardless of what the industry knew or didn't know, they are no more guilty than our own government, who still supplied cigarettes to soldiers till the mid '70s. 

Right now the pharmaceuticals are doing the same thing and they are no better than Big Tobacco. There's Big Money in them thar smoking cessation products, and no one lets ethics stand in their way. Now you have anti-tobacco crusaders in positions of power, like Gro Harlem Brundtland of the World Health Organization who has the stated goal of a tobacco-free world, and the Clinton administration, who just wants all the dollars possible before tobacco goes away. 

You don't see that by making the tennis players and cowboys 
unattractive slobs that the anti-smoker uses that to point out how unsavory smokers are? It doesn't hurt Big Tobacco; all it does is make the average smoker the object of ridicule and scorn. And those ads are just as untrue as the tobacco companies' ads. I smoke and I play tennis three times a week (very well); I swim; I hike; I spelunk. And most of my friends with whom I share these activities also smoke. My organization has members all over the country, and not one of them fits the Virginia SLAMS picture. 

The REAL enemy is anyone who is willing to twist the truth to his own ends to enable him to trample all over anyone's rights. Be they gun owners or smokers or drinkers or gamblers (I don't drink either, or gamble). 

You think "today's rules are reasonable." Probably because you don't know what those rules entail. Here in California, smoking is banned in all restaurants, all bars, all workplaces, many outdoor parks and beaches, many sidewalks, many apartment buildings and condominium 
complexes. That's not reasonable. Every day more municipalities enact similar bans because a few vocal anti-smokers bring the issue before the council and use the lies of the anti-smoking establishment to push them through. Orange County. Florida, will not hire a smoker, even if he only smokes at home on his own time. 

Yes, people have lost custody just because they smoke. On the ASH 
web site is a packet of information on how to get that done. They'll 
sell it to you for a mere $15.95. Also how to get people thrown out of their homes, etc. 

You needn't "switch sides" to support those who are truly being hurt by the War on Tobacco; not the tobacco companies, the smokers. We don't support Big Tobacco, either. They have thrown us to the wolves with the 
MSA $209 billion settlement. They aren't paying a dime of that 
settlement, smokers are. 

We are not victims of Big Tobacco; we are victims of a government out of control and a multinational anti-tobacco movement funded with our own dollars. We are adult, thinking, taxpaying citizens who deserve the same dignity and respect anyone else is afforded. 

SPINNER - Smokers United


Cancer really is the bogeyman of our age, and it achieved its 
notoriety precisely because of its unpredictability.  At first, the 
causes were completely unknown, and that was very scary indeed.  But as long as the triggers of cancerous growths remained unknown, we could accept the disease as a fact of life, a punishment of God, something not to worry about because there was nothing we could do about it.  A bit like the weather on July 4th or Californians not worrying about the next big earthquake: que sera, sera. 

Then the buffoons came up with all sorts of causes which could 
possibly, twenty years later, lead to cancer -- and that is worse.  We 
end up double-checking our every action for possible carcinogenic 
implications and live in a constant state of anxiety -- and the rate 
of cancer is rising.  In a curious way, we have reverted to a more 
primitive behaviour: like cavemen we engage in rituals to propitiate 
the Gods of medicine and avert their punishment.  Cancer has become one of our totems around which rituals and taboos have sprung up, promulgated by the High Priests in their white coats which promise protection and relief if we obey and make the sacrifices which please them.  The Age of Enlightenment has truly passed... 

And worse still, our fears are undifferentiated.  There are a fair 
number of varieties of cancer, and the percentage of those that are 
untreatable and incurable is small.  The survival rate for most 
cancers is high, in some cases higher than that of a 'flu epidemic. Lung cancer, that monster under the bed for smokers, is survivable, 
and the earlier it is detected, the better the chances.  If the 
governments were really interested in reducing long-term mortality 
rates from lung cancer, they would pump money into annual medical 
checks for the entire population (as they already do in some places 
for beast cancer).  It's not as if they don't have the money...



Ex-Smoker in Recovery Reports:   Life saved: 1 week, 45 minutes. 

How did your meter come up with this amusing little "statistic"? 
Didn't it take into account Real Life when bad things...truly bad things (unlike smoking, which isn't) ... can happen to good people and end their lives in an instant, regardless of the person's age?  Does the meter guarantee its promise to you?  Will it allow your loved ones to sue for Big Bucks when it's proven that the meter lied to you all along and was just having the Last Laugh on extremely gullible people? 



In 1950, the Japanese health system was still pretty much devastated by World War II. Many of the deaths attributed to TB and to pneumonia/bronchitis were probably misdiagnosed cases of lung cancer. Thus, the apparent increase in lung cancer between 1950 and 1979 may well be non-existent.

In any event, recent news stories tell us that the life expectancy of a Japanese at birth is now, incredibly, more than 90 years. Yet, Japanese men still have the highest rates of smoking of any country in the world for which we have good figures. Common sense tells us that lung cancer is caused by something that people inhale. Common sense, however, does not always mix very well with science. 

In the animal experiments, which are still going forward, nobody has been able to induce lung cancer in an animal by forcing them to inhale tobacco smoke. Dr. Bill Fields sent me an old study, which  I posted here, in which experimenters claimed to have induced lung cancer in a certain percentage of hamsters, by 
forcing them to inhale massive quantities of polonium 210. Entirely aside from the issue of smoking, this study bears repeating, because, if true, it would (a) tend to confirm the radiation theory; and (b) also establish that lung cancer can be caused by inhalation of at least some substances. 

In science, however, a single study doesn't prove anything. It's too easy for experimenters to "kid themselves" or to "kid" the outside world, as Auerbach did 
with his Beagle study, when he referred to "lesions" in the lungs and hinted that they were tumors when, in fact, they weren't. 

Unfortunately, when an experiment doesn't work, it often goes unreported. The
polonium/hamster experiment may well have been repeated, but this time without success. We just don't know. A search under Medline, using the search term 
"polonium", brings up the study that Dr. Fields sent me but no others. 

Meanwhile, the situation is further complicated by two recent studies, 
commissioned by the American Association of Radiologists, which purport to show that a certain amount of low level radiation actually prevents cancer. Chances 
are that you can pick up a little booklet describing these studies on a coffee table in your dentist's office. My dentist has such a booklet in his office. 

Still further complicating the picture are animal studies with specially bred rats (F344 rats), in which experimenters claim to have induced lung cancer by 
putting carcinogens in the rat's drinking water and food, but not, apparently, by causing the animals to inhale these or other carcinogens. 

Dave Hitt hit the nail on the head when he posted that the true cause of lung cancer, when and if it is discovered, is likely to be a complete surprise - something that nobody ever expected.

LARRY COLBY - In Defense of Smokers


We are all idiots in some fashion or another.  Bungee jumping 
involves throwing yourself off a bridge tied to a rubber band.  Motor racing involves going round and round and round in circles at insane speeds.  Joggers willfully expose themselves to urban pollution and a pedestrian's risk in traffic.  All human activity exposes you to risk of some sort, and most human activity is idiotic to some degree. Smoking is no different, and smokers are no more idiotic than the rest of moronic mankind. 



Anti-smokers have no  interest in accommodating smokers in any way whatsoever.  They do not practise tolerance or contemplate compromises.  The phrase "live and let live" means everything the antis are not.  Antis have been documented to have hysterical fits in the presence of fake (plastic) cigarettes.  They routinely claim a sense of smell for their own which rivals that of a bloodhound.  But that is not the  worst: the worst is that they claim to have The Truth.  They, and only they, know what is best for you, and they will ride roughshod over your lifestyle, your habits, your pleasures and your rights to enforce this vision.  Think of the Catholic Inquisition killing people to save their souls, and you get an understanding of the anti-smokers' mindset.  They will not accept smoking zones because they want the whole world to be smoke-free.  And once they have succeeded with your stogie, they will come after your brandy, your RV, your steak and any other pleasure in your life. 



The world is made up of more than just children.  Heck, I was one of 
those kids everyone is so concerned about.  So what happened?  How 
come the concern doesn't follow kids into adulthood?  We ARE the same people.



I think these antis (of all persuasions) have a certain type of personality which is incapable of dealing with the disappointment of finding out that the world is not fair, that we are irrational 
creatures, that the best product does not necessarily win the 
competition, that there is cheating, that criminals do get away with 
it, that love everlasting may be shorter than you think -- in short, 
reality.  These people are forced to see that Betamax VCRs and vinyl 
turntables do not sweep the market and that humans occasionally enjoy doing the dumb thing, but they do not like it.  They cannot make their peace with it.  So they spend an enormous amount of time and effort screaming and yelling and carrying on (call them tantrums if you will) and generally attempting to make reality conform to their shattered illusions.  That they are condemned to failure is a fact they will not, cannot, accept.  The truly deranged ones become militia members or Unabombers ( I read his manifesto -- jeez!!); the slightly more proactive ones become agents of Political Correctness (with all its 
ramifications like affirmative action) who at least are trying to put something else in the place of the object of their hatred; the run of the mill type is merely negative, against this, contra that, banning 
this, regulating the other.  The last type is by far the most common; 
its representatives do not have the imagination to offer alternatives 
(however screwy) but neither do they have the small child viciousness of the true terrorist.  Thankfully. 



Smoking is a "bad habit". A vice. It serves no great Social purpose, it simply gives pleasure to the smoker. Is this a reason to regulate it? Is it grounds to hound the tobacco companies into bankruptcy? 

In the hysteria over cancer and other health issues associated with smoking the public has lost sight of a few things. It is none of the government's goddamned business to nag the citizenry into good health. It is none of the 
government's goddamned business to pester the citizenry into moral behavior. Smoking has ALWAYS been regarded as a vice. So now we have a group of people who "know" where that vice leads. How are they different from the religious idiots of the 19th century who "knew" that it lead to perdition? 

Regulation and Litigation of the tobacco Crusade are all leading in one direction. A ban. Such a ban will undoubtedly have about the same effect on smoking in this country that Prohibition had on drinking.



I think the figures given here are for any one year of life. 

About 7% of all deaths in the U.S. are caused by lung cancer - the figure varies a little, depending upon whether we are talking about primary lung cancer, standing alone, or whether we include other cancers of the intrathoracic organs. 

This means, however, that about 1 in 14 Americans will eventually die from lung cancer. What we do *not* have is scientific evidence that a larger proportion of 
smokers will die from lung cancer than non-smokers. All we have is the cancer society studies and Doll's study of British doctors. All of these studies exonerated pipe and cigar smoking from any harm (a finding that modern 
anti-smokers would never accept). 

Beyond that, however, the studies were so full of holes (discussed in my book) as to prove nothing. They treated ex-smokers as if they were current smokers. There is strong evidence, in the case of the cancer society studies, that the 
volunteers who conducted the surveys didn't report all of the deaths - especially deaths among non-smokers. In Doll's case, an article which he published in 1991 admitted that practically all of his subjects gave up smoking after the publication of the 1964 Surgeon General's Report; thus, the "caseness" of his smoking group has been destroyed; yet, he continues to study the group, 
essentially as if nothing has changed. In no case (cancer society or Doll) have the raw figures been released, which would allow somebody like me to 
independently analyse the results. 

LARRY COLBY - In Defense of Smokers


What some people appear to lack is what is commonly known as "maturity". Life happens.  Shit happens.  Things happen, good or bad, and they do not have to have a reason.  Growing up means being able to accept this.  Only children pout, stamp their feet and shout "NO". The universe does not care that this is an inconvenient moment for you to get run over by a bus.  Nor does it care that this week's lottery was won by a millionaire.  Fate is random; there is no guiding principle or mysterious agency which determines what will happen, and for what reason. There is only chance. Maturity means accepting this.  Maturity means accepting that shit happens and your only chance is to play the percentages without compromising your enjoyment/appreciation of life.  You play the percentages by looking left and right before crossing the street, not by never crossing the street or demanding that traffic lights are installed wherever you happen to wish to cross the street. 

Living a good life does not mean worrying about what will happen or doing everything possible to influence events beyond our control, it is an attitude.  How I deal with what does happen is more important than desperately hopping about this way and that, trying to avoid the oncoming headlights of Life.  We are going to be hit, there's no way of avoiding it. 

Accept this and you will have a much happier life.  Promise. 



And like it or not, the proportion of asthma sufferers in society is just a tiny fraction of the population, and that number is absolutely dwarfed by the number of smokers.  If numbers make right, as you seem to be implying, 
then smokers should be accommodated and asthmatics ignored. 

Do I believe this?  No.  But it certainly is directly derived from what YOU have stated.  If people with allergies to perfume are in insignificant numbers compared to people with asthma, and therefore should be ignored, then the fact that asthma suffers are in insignificant numbers compared to smokers must meant that asthmatics should be ignored.  This conclusions follows directly from what YOU have said. 



When the Surgeon General's Report was first issued in 1964, the cancer societies solemnly assured smokers that if they'd just quit smoking, their lungs would 
"clear" within two years and they'd no longer be in any danger of lung cancer. As time went on, smoking rates diminished and lung cancer rates continued to rise, they began postulating the "incubation theory". First they said that maybe it takes five years for the lungs to "clear" (whatever that means). Then they began saying that it takes 20 years for lung cancer, caused by smoking, to occur. This was then lengthened to 30 years and more recently, 40 years. Most 
recently of all, the theory has been advanced that if a smoker smokes during his formative years, his DNA has been permanently damaged and he is doomed, whether he gives up smoking, or not. The truth is that there isn't a scrap of evidence to back up any of these theories. They are just inventions, to explain away 
inconvenient facts. 

LARRY COLBY - In Defense of Smokers


Most if not all of us are sensible enough to admit that smoking increases the risk of respiratory illnesses and cancer.  The statistical inference is quite strong enough to make it a foolishness not to seriously consider the adverse health implications. 
What we do question is the lack of hard medical evidence.  After 
decades of intensive research, there are still no demonstrable, 
reproducible experiments which show the mechanism by which any one of the 4.000 or so chemicals in cigarette smoke cause cells to mutate into a cancer.  This doesn't mean that it ain't so; it does mean that there are probably a lot of different factors involved in cancer, and that to blame it all on tobacco is misguided in the extreme.  And it is exactly this simplistic witch hunt against tobacco which is pushed in public.  Neither ASH nor the government are interested in presenting a balanced view on this matter; instead, they insist on messages like "Smoking Kills".  Not exactly balanced and scientifically correct, I am sure you will agree.  And this is precisely what gets my back up.  This policy is simplistic and stupid and, I suspect, in the end counterproductive as it distracts from other causes of cancer and siphons funds and attention away from valuable medical research.  How many (non-smoking) people will die from cancer because benzene, radiation, household chemicals or G*d knows what are not sufficiently researched as carcinogenic? This, BTW, is also where your comparison with the 'flu falls down. Any high school chemistry department could construct an experiment to 
show the virus responsible, and how it attacks the cells to cause 
influenza.  This is not possible with tobacco. 

So, yes, excessive smoking probably does do harm and increases the likelihood of contracting certain diseases.  But no, Second-Hand Smoke 
probably does not.  The medical case against tobacco being fairly 
thin, we have to rely on statistical inference, and in the matter of 
SHS that is weak to the point of meaninglessness.  Personal 
preferences as to the smell in your environment is a whole other 
ball game. 



The anti-smoker/anti-smoking zealots are only in it for control.  Power and control.  They have so little of both in their own puny lives that they feel the pathological, desperate need to control others ... in everything, not just the smoking issue.  I suspect most of the Aunties were emotionally and/or psychologically abused in their formative years, perhaps being told to 'shut up' too often, perhaps being told how worthless they are, perhaps being totally ignored, perhaps being picked on by their classmates, etc.

Now, as 'adults' (using the term only chronologically), they're
lashing out at the society they can't fit into.  When the smoking
issue is no longer the pet cause celebre, the Aunties will go after
people who enjoy skydiving or car racing or who overindulge on junk
food or who wear perfume/after-shave or who enjoy fine wines or any number of enjoyable activities. Because they're too frightened to
relax and enjoy their own lives (which is why they claim that only
smokers die).

They're on the outside looking in.  They know it and hate it so they
attack people with bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, and hatred.

Bottom line is, they're masochistic ... why else would they hang
around pro-smokers' rights ng like alt.smokers and
Any amount of attention, even negative attention, is what they get off on.  They truly believe they're in control, but the opposite is true.
They want Big Brother to run their own lives, so they want to force 99% of the rest of the world's population to want it, too.




When laws were passed demanding restaurants have separate smoking and non-smoking sections, most of us weren't happy with the government intrusion but figured we were finally finished with the argument. The nannies could keep whining but no one would pay attention now that a reasonable solution had been adopted.  Silly us.  Approximately three seconds after the laws went into effect the nannies were clamoring for even more restrictions.  And a quick visit to the ASH site will show you what they really have in mind - they intend to take children from smoking parents and get smokers evicted from their apartments.  So much for smoking in your home. 

Recent moves have been made to require that cigarettes be 
"self-extinguishing."  The excuse is fire safety; a minority of fires are caused by people passing out and dropping lit cigarettes on the 
furniture.  But note that the proponents of these laws are not 
concerned about any of the other, more common causes of fires, just 
cigarettes.  Also note that they conveniently leave out the fact that most cigarette fires are caused by the inebriated - it's more of a 
booze problem than a cigarette problem. 

But still, it appears, on the surface, to be a reasonable request. 
American cigarettes stay lit because they are treated with potassium nitrate to keep them burning.  All natural cigarettes and cigarettes imported form Europe and Canada go out on their own if you stop puffing on them for a few minutes.  Take the saltpeter out of American 
cigarettes and they'd behave the same way.  Why would anyone oppose such a reasonable request? 

Because we've learned our lesson.  We know, based on their past 
history, that if the nannies get something like this passed they'll 
first demand that they go out in three minutes, then it two, then in  one, then in thirty seconds.  They won't be happy until the things are made out of asbestos. 
Looks like I got a bit sidetracked.  But the point remains valid. 
Just as defenders of the First and Second amendments refuse to budge just a little, smokers have also learned not to compromise.  Nannies do not want smokers accommodated.  They want them destroyed. 

Remember that next time a smoker appears to be unreasonable. 
DAVE HITT - The Hittman Chronicle


RE:  Study by Dr. Joseph DiFranza in the journal Pediatrics

It is a meta study, a study of studies, the easiest kind of study to fake. They are an attempt to get meaningful data out of questionable studies by pooling the results.  Meta studies are so unreliable and prone to fraud they should simply be ignored as the fiction they are. But for the sake of argument, let's forget that fact, and look a bit closer at the study, shall we? 

First off, the conclusions:  "Each year, among American children, tobacco is associated with an estimated 284 to 360 deaths from lower respiratory track illnesses and fires illnesses by smoking materials, more than 300 fire related injuries, 354,00 to 2.2 million episodes of otitus media, 5,200 to 165,000 tympanostiomies, 14,000 to 21,000 tonsillectomies and/or adenoidectomies, 529,000 physician visits for asthma, 1.3 to 2 million visits for coughs, and for children under than 5 years of age, 260,000 to 436,00 episodes of bronchitis and 115,000 to 190,000 episodes of pneumonia." 

Pretty scary numbers.  But look again.  Consider the *range* of them. Somewhere between 354,00 and 2.2 million?  What kind of precision is that?  14,000 to 21,000?  And so on - the ranges are ridiculous, and show just how goofy the numbers are.  Note, of course, the careful use of the word "estimate," just once.  Meaning "guess." 

But those are trivial concerns, compared to the other problems with the report. 

In each pool of studies, the relative risk (RR) was significantly less than the 2.0 required for a result to be significant.  For instance, 
for middle ear disease, the RR was 1.19, a meaningless number.  That part of the study contained this paragraph:  "Only 4 of the cohort 
studies provided usable data.  Of the 13 with insufficient data, five had positive finding and eight did not.  The meta analysis produced a pooled RR of 1.19" 

One of the most difficult problems with epidemiology in general is confounders.  For instance, people in lower income levels have shorter life spans than people in higher income levels.  Blacks tend to die younger than whites.  Smoking is more common among those in lower income levels.  It is also much more prevalent in the black community across all income levels.  Therefore, when studying mortality rates, it is vital to account for both income level and race.  Imagine the difficulty of trying to come up with a correct adjustment when these two factors are combined, as in lower income blacks.  But if you don't do it, and do it correctly, the numbers are meaningless. 

That is a very simplified example.  In real life, the number of confounders are huge, and calculating just one of them incorrectly can have an enormous impact on the accuracy of the data.  When examining smoking issues and children, for instance, a partial list of the confounders includes age, allergy, breast feeding, compliance with medications, crowding, day care and school  attendance, education, ethnicity, family size, gas heating and cooking, gender, maternal age, maternal symptoms of depression, parental allergies, parental respiratory symptoms, prematurity, race, frequency of visits to a physician, residence location, type of residence, and socioeconomic status.  Most of the studies used in this meta study did *not* take all these things into account.  And the study itself displays this disclaimer: 

"Because the individual studies that were combined by meta-analysis use a variety of methods, it was not possible to make adjustments for 
confounding. In the individual studies, adjustment for other factors was likely to increase the magnitude of the risk as to decrease it." 

In other words, the very nature of this study means they can not account for even a few of the factors that might skew their data. Therefore, the study is completely worthless. 
The conclusions reached by this doctor are, to say the least, 
troubling.  "Smoking should be banned whenever children are present." Imagine what it would be like to have Big Brother enforcing that ban in your home.  And there's no doubt he's talking about homes, as that's where most of the exposure in this study occurs. He goes on to recommend, 
"Potential exposure to ETS should be one of the many factors considered in custody cases and situations in which children are placed in homes."  Isn't it nice to know this doctor is recommending making custody fights even more nasty by introducing more bile into them, based on his ridiculous study. 
 The very next day serendipity stepped in and gave me information that proves, undeniably that this entire study is pure crap. 

It hadn't  occurred to me to check the credentials of the doctor or the group that funded the study.  But his name popped up while I was 
reading "For Your Own Good," a very through history of the anti-smoking movement.  A bit more research on my part proved that this guy was heavily involved in the anti-smoking movement in 1989, seven years before this study was published.  But it gets better.  A few paragraphs later in the book it mentions that the Robert Wood  
Johnson Foundation granted ten *million* dollars to anti-smoking activists to get cigarette taxes raised a year before this study was 
conducted.  In other words, they are a nanny organization, devoted members of the charity cartel who encourage contributions from other nannies by shitting on smokers.  The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is 
the *sole* funder of this study. 

So not only is the study *seriously* flawed, it was funded by a nanny 
organization and conducted by a nanny zealot. 

Now, can *anybody* with an IQ in the double digits still take it seriously? 

DAVE HITT - The Hittman Chronicle


"Diseases" such as gastroenteritis and pneumonia and bronchitis 
are not "diseases" but rather, symptoms of diseases. The inclusion of these "diseases" in the leading causes of death during the early years following WWII 
demonstrates that Japanese doctors weren't making detailed diagnoses at that time. It didn't take long for them to realize that the cases of gastroenteritis were really stomach cancer (which became the most common form of cancer in Japan). By the same token, you can be sure that many or most of the cases of 
pneumonia and bronchitis and some of the cases of tuberculosis were really lung cancer. Thus, the notion that there was a drastic increase in lung cancer in 
Japan between 1950 and 1979 is false. There may well have been no increase at all. 

LARRY COLBY - In Defense of Smokers


The polonium theory postulated that tobacco, in and of itself, was harmless; that the danger (if there was one) came from adulterants in the tobacco. Therefore, if the tobacco companies knew that there were adulterants and failed 
to take steps to remove them, plaintiffs' lawyers could have had a field day. However, so far as I know, the polonium theory was never successfully advanced 
in any lawsuit against the companies. Rather, the latest actions, including the ones in Florida, are based on the theory that the companies were selling a product that they knew to be "addictive" - a much weaker theory than one based upon adulterants. 

As to benzo(a)pyrene, it is not, in and of itself, a carcinogen. It has to be metabolized in the liver and the metabolites are carcinogens. People who eat char broiled steaks and burgers and other burnt foods consume huge quantities of 
benzo(a)pyrene which are, indeed, metabolized in the liver. The carcinogenic metabolites flow through the bloodstream to the lungs, where they reach the 
interior lung surfaces during the process of oxygenation. This explains why the thousands of animal experiments with smoke inhalation have failed, while 
researchers have achieved some success, at least with specially bred rats, by putting carcinogens in their food and drinking water. 

LARRY COLBY - In Defense of Smokers


We've tried that [Compromise].  It didn't appease them.  Instead, it infused them with a sense of power.  "Look, we forced smoking and non smoking  sections, now let's eliminate smoking sections entirely!" 
This is not about reason, nor is it about health, it is about 
religion.  These are religious fanatics, worshiping the god of health, and nothing, absolutely nothing, is too evil or hateful in pursuit of the goal.  ASH, for instance, sells a kit to help get smokers kicked out of their homes.  They sell another that encourages people to use smoking to make custody battles even nastier. 

Reasonable proposals don't work, because they are beyond reason.  They are blinded by their seething hatred, propelled by their need to feel superior to their betters, driven by a religious fury.  Reasonable 
people can come to a compromise and that's the end of the matter. 
Nannies will pretend to want a compromise, and then, moments later, celebrate that they have won a step in their endless fight, a fight they will not stop until everyone in the world has bowed to their 

DAVE HITT - The Hittman Chronicle


Some of us realise that the chances of that are not really affected by 
certain habits or lifestyle decisions. 

If I move into the countryside to get away from the pollution, eat 
only organic food and avoid red meat, exercise regularly, don't smoke, drink only the recommended two glasses of red wine a week, will I live 
forever?  Nope.  Will I live longer?  Nope.  In fact, such a lifestyle would decrease my chances of dying of cancer or heart disease only marginally.  Do the math. 

And in the meantime I'd be obsessing about my health, sucking enjoyment out of all I do. 
If a bottle of wine or a good cigar shortens my life by a day each time I pop that cork or light that match, so be it.  At least I lived.  At 
least I will go into the Great Unknown with a store of memories worth having.  Denying yourself these memories, this joy, is true sacrilege.  It denies our nature, it denies the deity of your choice. Truly sad... 



If anyone in Canada (as well as in the rest of the world) has still 
any doubt that the anti-smoking establishment is a fascist 
establishment, this last move of the Canadian anti-tobacco cartel  
should remove it. Perhaps it would be appropriate to revise, once 
again, what fascism is: 

First, fascism is not a political doctrine; it is a mental CONDITION. 

Second, fascism DOES NOT respect the legal system, courts and magistrates. It USES them as instruments of its agenda. 
It ignores them, and defies them when they oppose it. Fascism despises elections and democracy... secretly and covertly at first, then openly when it has firmly acquired power. And fascism remembers those who fought against it. 

Third, the fascist state does not care for logic, reason, compromise, understanding, and truth. All that is subject to the misguided 
emotions of those who are in power. 

Fourth, public opinion in the fascist state is not something to be  respected, or listened to in its variegated expressions. It is 
something to be driven and formed by the state. The public does not 
rule, but is instead the target for education. 

Resistance to all of the above is to be dealt with decisively, and in 
no uncertain terms. The public is expected to KNOW that the state is there to protect it, and to deal with its enemies on its behalf. 
Especially, the public must know who is in charge. In exchange for the gift of state wisdom and protection, the public will obey the state's directives and propaganda. Those who do not are to be considered either public enemies, or victims of the state enemies' propaganda (in our case, the tobacco industry), and either punished, or educated 

Have we described the anti-smoking state so far? Only force can break the back of fascism -- and it takes a lot of force. Although fascism's "ideology" takes many shapes and manifests itself in many ways (physical health is always a prominent preoccupation), it has very little to do with ideals, for this term is used to coat emotions of  insecurity, fear, and contempt for individual choice and independence. 

So, the fight goes on. It is either freedom OR state-imposed "health." 

ANNA - The Smoker's Club, Inc.


All these statistics can show is a *possibility*.  Nothing less, and 
certainly nothing more. They can indicate connections.  They can never prove them. 

Apart from that, since when is the burden of proof on the accused? 
Has the law changed since I last looked?  So far there is 
circumstantial evidence of a connection (fairly strong, I grant) to primary lung cancer.  There is not a shred of medical, scientific 
evidence.  No causal link has ever been established, even after 
decades of trying. 

And even if incontrovertible evidence were to turn up tomorrow, what then?  Ban tobacco?  Where is the limit?  Why demand "NO" harm? Nothing on Earth, absolutely nothing at all, poses no risk at all. Can we ban everything?  Medically speaking, there are far better cases 
for banning fatty foods (good-bye MacDonald's and Coke) or cars 
(cheerio, Ford).  Shellfish and peanuts pose real, provable and direct risks to health; should we ban lobster and pbj sandwiches? 
I would be truly interested to know whatever gave you the idea that 
you could expect, nay demand, "NO harm".  Life is risk.  Most 
accidents take place in the home -- should we all move into hotels? 
Remember, not even hotels can protect you from all harm. 

The fact is that there is risk in all we do.  We have to accept this 
fact.  Some risks we cannot avoid, some risks we cannot eliminate. 
Some risk we can reasonably do something about.  And here it gets  tricky.  What is "reasonable"?  It's an entirely subjective value 
judgment.  You may well think that skydiving is lunacy and insanely risky.  Tens of thousands disagree.  It is my own responsibility to make a decision what risk to accept, and my responsibility to make this an informed decision.  As a cigar smoker, I have decided that 
lighting up a Cuban poses less risk than crossing the street or getting out of the bath tub.  In a restaurant, I will assess the other 
patrons, and if nobody objects and if there is a large number of 
smokers, I will light up myself (after asking the others at the 
table).  This, btw, is common courtesy, a most excellent habit 
unfortunately lacking in too many people these days (smokers and 
non-smokers alike).  As a non-smoker in a steakhouse or a genuine wood-fired pizza Italian, your exposure to carcinogens is a multiple of that from cigars.  Same goes for barbecues (no more 4th of July bbq...).  And let's not talk about respiratory diseases induced by exhaust fumes... 

If you decide for yourself that you do not wish to smoke, that is 
fine.  Laudable, even.  If you insist that your home remain 
smoke-free, that is certainly OK -- your place, your rules.  But to 
impose your notions outside the private arena is not reasonable, not least because there are so many other substances which have a *far* better claim to Health Hazard of the Year.  If you are happy giving up your car, processed foods, alcohol, meat, dairy, plastics, chocolate, 
household detergents and cleaners -- then I salute you and will not 
say another word.  But you don't, do you? 



Scientific data at this point in time give a reasonable indication 
that inhalation of tobacco is one trigger factor for cancer, but an 
analysis of the methods used in obtaining said data raises equally 
reasonable suspicions as to the ulterior motives of the opponents of smoking and a resulting overstatement of the scientific argument against tobacco. 

It is detrimental to the health of all nations that the fight against 
cancer should be so simplistic in nature; complicated problems usually have complicated solutions, and to disregard this maxim does all of us a grave disservice. 

Social paradigms are not etched in stone; they shift.  Society's 
stance on the use of any drug is liable to change, and it behooves 
government and legislature to adjust the legal framework to reflect these shifts.  Failure to do so causes tensions and imbalances. 

The scientific case against Second-Hand Smoking must at this point in time be considered not proven.  Currently available data are equivocal. 

Smoking is a vice according to the current social definition.  Social 
attitudes are currently undergoing a shift to reclassify smoking as an 

Society can be defined as a compromise agreement between minorities for mutual benefit.  To deny compromise to one minority (smokers) is to undermine and deny the very foundations and principles of society. 

The current de-emphasis of polite and courteous behaviour is a major cause of tension in society at large and in the specific area of 
smoking in the company of others. 

The only ethical justification of smoking, especially in public, is a 
reliance on the acceptance and practice of the principle of reasonable tolerance.  This is widely disregarded these days. 

The only moral justification for smoking is, ultima ratio, the 
sovereignty of the citizen over his own fortunes. 

Risk assessment is entirely subjective; the only person who can decide on the acceptability of any given risk is that person himself.  This is a universal principle which cannot be acknowledged in day trading, 
sports or any other human activity but abrogated in isolated cases. 
Not without consequences anyway. 

Relative harm is no justification for any decisions regarding the 
legality of any drug. 

Acceptable risk for the individual and acceptable risk for other 
members of society and society at large are three different things. 
As with rights and liberties, risks must be voluntarily limited but 
not abrogated entirely. 

The arguments and tactics currently employed in the fight against tobacco are a blueprint already being followed by other activist groups with far more intrusive agendas; in this regard tobacco is the precedent which may well determine the shape of society and the lives of its members for generations. 



Remark:  Actually, I'm pretty sure anxiety and depression may come from an addicted person realizing how much money they are literally turning into smoke!

Do you get anxious and depressed when you realize that when you eat and drink it turns in ca ca?  Or that the gas from your car turns into fumes?  Or that your movie ticket ends up in the garbage? Or that your breathing polutes? Or that your sweat stinks when you go to the gym? Or that your laundry uses soap?  Or that your stainless steel cutlery was forged in some steel plant?  Or your funiture and toilet paper are dead trees? 

Some are necessities for some, or maybe not. Some are pleasures for
some, or maybe not, but it's your/their choice, isn't it?  Some eat with their hands, some smoke, some drink, some pound clothes on rocks, some walk, some sit on the floor, some swim, some eat candy, some hunt, some eat only vegetables, some wipe their asses with their hands. Choices all, made from such reasons as culture, habit, enjoyment, necessity, or just the way the ball bounces in their neck of the woods, or their minds. 

Who are you to criticize anyone's choice of a pleasure, necessity as
they interpret it, or the way they spend their money??  Mind your own business, and better yet enjoy the human diversity around you and thank the stars that not everyone is the same. To do otherwise leads to much anxiety. Anti-smokers are the most anxious people I know, they worry that not everyone is the same as them. Tough! 

ANNA - The Smoker's Club, Inc.


I still have to encounter a non-smoker whoREALLY believes that passive smoke hurts people, for example. They realise that walking in the streets is often worse. But that is irrelevant: that
junk science SERVES their purpose of getting rid of an environment they do not like: smoking; and if the State provides the excuse, they will take it
because it is advantageous to them. It is like buying stolen goods at 1/10 of the market price with the guarantee that you will not get caught.

If you have moral integrity, you don't buy them anyway. If you don't have that integrity, and I give you the guarantee that you will get away with it, you will buy those goods. I use this stupid example to illustrate the point. The corrupt few make a product (antismoking "science", or
electromagnetic radiation, etc.) that has a successful market because the corrupt many buy that product.

So, the fault  is not just of the antismokers, but mainly, of that
intellectualy and morally dishonest majority who uses frauds to achieve its short-sighted ends. And if that then screws up the entire social and moral system of the next generation, who cares? They will be dead by then!



Fact, the Surgeon General's report on smoking specifically said that smoking wasn't addictive.  

Fact, the Surgeon General's report on smoking contains "data" from people who never responded to a survey.  

Fact, basing your "study" on a mail out survey , as one study included  in the Surgeon General's report on smoking did, asking someone what they *think* about the smoking habits of *other* people that they know makes the "data" second hand anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is shaky, at best. You claim it's worthless, and thus nearly every study on smoking would also be worthless. ESPECIALLY the Surgeon General's report on smoking, which did NO  ACTUAL scientific work at all! It was a meta-study, that is a study of  studies, already containing second hand anecdotal evidence making it THIRD HAND anecdotal evidence.  

Oh yeah, by the way:  

FACT, *the actual specifically stated conclusion of the Surgeon General's report on smoking,* a study biased to find harmful effects, was that the evidence was STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT! In other words, could have been due to pure chance.  

Fact, to give you something to think about regarding the nature of  statistical studies, you can't tell if a die is true by rolling it twice.  

Fact, nicotine itself is not addictive. You can find this expounded on at  many ANTIsmoking web sites. It is toxic. There is a difference. Arsenic, for instance,  is nonaddictive. It is toxic. No one gets addicted to arsenic, although it saves many lives when used properly, just as nicotine can be so used.  

Fact, even anti-smoker's who believe that tobacco is addictive have to  hypothesize about why, since they know that nicotine ISN'T addictive. Unlike cocaine and heroin NO mechanism of tobacco addiction has ever been found.  

Fact, if nicotine were addictive, and made anything you said the incoherent ravings of a junkie, all of the population that imbibes french fries with ketchup on them would be in the same boat. You haven't had any french fries or ketchup lately, have you nicotine junkie?  

Fact, the Surgeon  General's report specifically pointed out that there were certain benefits to smoking.  

Fact, the Surgeon General's report specifically said that there was no  apparent risk to smoking cigars or pipes.  

Fact, several reports used to show the dangers of cigarette smoking ALSO show a PROTECTIVE effect against cancer in pipe smokers. Sometimes by a factor of ten.  

Fact, the above means that a pipe smoker's chances of getting cancer are statistically just about as good as a cigarette smoker's, or a NON smoker's.  

Fact, no mechanism for smoking causing cancer has ever been found. No laboratory experiment has ever been able to produce lung cancer in mice *specifically bred to be susceptible to cancer* by subjecting them to SMOKE.  

Fact, there is no way to tell from examining lung tissue, even malignant lung tissue, whether it's source was a smoker or not.  

Fact, the EPA's study on SHS was a pack of statistical fabrications and  outright lies. That isn't just a characterization of it. It's a finding of fact by a Federal judge. The EPA responded by ignoring the judge and going forward with imposing illegal laws on the populace. This makes the EPA's   credibility on ANY matter about that of a retarded hamster



Cars kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, and maim and injure countless more victims.  You will not find any car industry ad mentioning these facts in the interest of consumer information and enterprise honesty.  You might also find it interesting to dig into 
the history of car manufacturing a little bit; you will find that 
manufacturers systematically bought up or suppressed patents on technologies which would have improved efficiency and safety. 

Alcohol is an addictive substance causing more misery, suffering, 
illness and death than any other intoxicating substance on Earth. 
Please show me a brewer espousing "fair marketing and honesty" by 
pointing out the dangers of alcohol abuse and scrapping the 
scantily clad nubile women so attractive to any teenage male over the age of 14. 

Junk food is a major contributor to heart disease.  Do we hear this 
from Ronald MacDonald?  That, btw, is marketing aimed squarely at kids from the age of toddler. 

Who enforced the sale of dolphin-friendly tuna -- the companies or the consumer? 

How many American living rooms are furnished in tropical hardwoods, and do the manufacturers tell you how many acres of irreplaceable rain forest had to die for you to leave coffee rings on the dining table? 

Tropical fruit is produced with the aid of extremely badly paid native 
workers and using chemicals banned in the US.  Would you care to show me the United Fruit ad which admits as much? 

Where is the Exxon marketing campaign admitting responsibility for liberally coating the Alaska shoreline in crude oil?  Where are the press releases by Shell admitting to collaborating with the Nigerianmilitary junta in the violent suppression of local tribes and human rights activism? 

Do please go through your home and inspect your property for goods made in China.  When you bought that pair of sneakers, did Nike make you aware that they were made by child labour?  When you bought that set of screwdrivers, did Home Depot alert you that it was made in the People's Republic of China by political prisoners in forced labour camps? 

How many parents are driven nuts by their kids to buy them the latest  and assuredly expensive fad in toys, movie spin-offs and street wear, 
and how ethical is it of companies to engage in this blatant emotional blackmail? 

Tobacco companies stuck to the laws and did nothing more and nothing less than any other company in business today.  The last time I saw a Joe Camel ad, btw, was in an adult magazine (European edition of Playboy, to be precise -- good articles) which by any criteria is not the ideal place for ads with a teenage target  audience.  Their advertising and marketing campaigns most assuredly stayed within the 
bounds of legality or they would never have been released.  And don't bother countering by mentioning lawsuits on the matter; the US is the country where I can get a couple of million bucks for sipping hot coffee and sue anything that moves at the drop of a hat. 

Here are some economic truths you might wish to ruminate upon: 
The overriding aim of a company is to maximise profits while 
minimising cost. The ultimate aim of any company is 100% market share because theoretically that means maximum profits. 
Good products do not guarantee commercial success.  Remember Tucker cars, DAT tapes, Apple/Mac OS and Betamax video? "Fair" marketing is an oxymoron.  Marketing, by its very definition, 
is deception. Honesty in business is defined by what you can get away with.  No more, no less. 



For the record, most of us in here do accept that smoking cigarettes 
can constitute a health risk for the user.  We also tend to dislike 
Big Tobacco.  In here, we are actually a third party, definitely not anti-smoking and against the cynical and unproductive attitude of the big manufacturers.  We are free-thinkers who like to weigh evidence before making up our minds and, even more importantly, we claim the right for ourselves to make up our own minds, make our own choices and take our own risks.  This may well be a deeply unfashionable philosophy in this day and age of universal victimhood and denial of 
responsibility, but we aim to stick it out.  You should try it; it's 
worth it. 

And where this spirit concerns tobacco, our position is clear.  What we dispute is the slanted and tainted evidence presented in support of this theory.  What we fight is the utterly intolerant fanaticism of anti-smoking organisations.  What we deplore is the mindset of totalitarian behaviour control which denies any balanced discussion. 
What we abhor is the blatant hypocrisy of money hungry politicians. What we question is the validity of basing blanket legal restrictions on nothing more than circumstantial and biased statistics.  Show us some hard medical evidence rather than infinitely malleable pre-digested statistics and you might have an argument worth taking on 
board.  As it is, your cause has nothing but hot air, and 
foul-smelling air at that. 



Isn't it amazing how anti-smokers pick and choose? When a legal decision goes against them, the judge must be corrupt.  When it is in their favour, it's a famous victory and proof that the system works. When Big Tobacco says something you don't like, they must be lying through their teeth; when they confirm your prejudices, they are quoted as irrefutable proof. When scientists claim to find evidence against smoking, they are  sterling fellows and deserving of the Nobel Prize, but when they fail  to find such evidence, they must be in the pay of Big Tobacco and to 
be treated with scorn and suspicion. 



For example, the Bureau of National Affairs reports that 95% of companies banning smoking reported no financial savings, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has found no connection between smoking and absenteeism. 

SPINNER - Smokers United


In a 1995 study by Dr. Gary Strauss, described in my book, 59% of his lung cancer victims were NOT smokers at the time their cancers were diagnosed. This 
is consistent with an even more recent study conducted by Tong at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Texas. 

Lung cancer, overwhelmingly, is a disease of old age. It begins to become significant in the age cohort 55-64, and steadily increases as the age cohort 
increases. In the age cohort 55+, however, we find that 85% or so of the population have smoked at some time in their lives; it may have been for only a few months or it may have been for a few years. Therefore, if we define a "smoker" as anyone who has EVER smoked, we get into a situation in which 8 out of ten or maybe even as many as 9 out of ten people in that age group are "smokers". That being true, we can take any disease that affects that particular age group and say that 8 out of ten victims are "smokers". It would be true, for example, of strokes, or Alzheimer's, or any disease that primarily affects the elderly. 

LARRY COLBY - In Defense of Smokers


For me, the essential argument is one of freedom.  People can argue all night and all day over the dangers or otherwise of smoking, and I think, in time, those dangers will be widely understood to have been over-rated.. however, even if the danger were *greater* than that which has been historically (and, more recently, hysterically) promoted, are we to sit idly by and have our lifestyles dictated to us by health fascists? Are we to place physical well-being above mental and emotional well- being because we are *told* that we must?  Indeed, in the final analysis, should we not have the right (as Dave Hitt, I think, has said 
before) to destroy ourselves completely if we so choose? 

The question is... to whom do our lives belong?



The Political Echelons of all societies have always attracted the type of people who seem blinded to the notion that individual choice 
actually works and is the driving force in a healthy robust society. 
Some cannot seem to understand, despite the enormous failures of 
communism, that economic freedom in the form of millions of daily individual choices is THE best "system", perhaps because it is not a system with which they can monkey.  Likewise, ethical and moral "systems" are most dynamically healthy when people are allowed, no, required, to make their own choices and reap the benefits and consequences thereof, as responsible sole individuals. 

We may have come, indeed, to the point where our nanny governments are no longer legitimate and should be scrapped. 



Too many so-called scientists have simply sold out to the gov't grant givers, or to their own hidden prejudices. With respect to smoking, in no other area have so many WEAK studies been produced, and then been touted as the latest "proof" that smoking is the greatest evil on earth. They argue "consistency" with similar studies -- yes, they are ALL consistently WEAK! ALL would be rejected outright in ANY other area. A hundred or a thousand WEAK studies do not combine into ANYTHING with any strength -- they combine into a consistently 
WEAK argument, PERIOD. There are far stronger links -- like abortion and breast cancer, birth control and breast cancer -- that are nonetheless dismissed 
because they conflict with socialist goals. Weak stats against smoking,  however, are played up because that IS a socialist goal. 

 And it's not some conspiracy theory; gov't's and agencies are agreed on these things. Free birth control for everyone. Abortion is a right (and in China, a DUTY). A smoke-free world by (fill in the date). There really ARE plans, and  the purpose is to turn the masses into good, healthy, obedient, and STUPID little proles. 

The antis "feel" greatly and furiously, of course; we see and hear their hatred and lies every day. Feelings are very real, but utterly separate from truth and 
reason. Antis clutch these weak arguments because they realize their hatred is irrational, and hope to put some semblance of scientific respectability in front of their rage. 

 Meanwhile, the gov't nods its collective head and says "It's working. The people are at each others' throats, thanks to our manipulation, and WE shall be 
their saviors..." 

 As Churchill said about the Brits' ability to decipher German code, "The truth is so precious, it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies." With the gov't, the truth is that it funds endless crap studies to divide us, extort money, accumulate power and control our lives. The lies are that they "care," and that it's "for the children."  With antis, the truth is their hatred; the lies are the meaningless "scientific" studies that prove nothing other than their desperation for justification. And BOTH prove that science is now politicized and utterly unworthy of trust.



The anti smokers start from the belief that inhaling smoke is unhealthy. Sound enough reasoning, however one looks at it. Then they try to apply science 
to demonstrate HOW bad it is, and when they get disappointing results they exaggerate them. That isn't science. 

Smokers start from the belief that smoking gives them more than it takes. Perhaps a shaky bit of reasoning, but a very personal and therefore largely unarguable one. Then they look at the anti smokers attempts to make "science" prove otherwise. They see the exaggerations and dismiss the whole thing. That isn't science either. 


    1) Many, if not all, of the foundational "Smoking studies" do contain serious procedural flaws. 

    2) When quoting statistics on smoking the anti smokers are much given to exaggeration. This plays well to the fearful, but undermines their arguments with the skeptical. 

    3) It is fairly plain that the "scientific" case against SHS has been political from the start. The epidemiological case, even "cherry picking" the data, is far from persuasive, and the quantitative case keeps turning up exposure levels of less than a cigarette per day at the highest believable 

    All the "science" in the world will not change the fact that this is an essentially religious argument. The Liberal left, having scorned all traditional Religion for decades, has taken up (among other things) the worship of "health". Nothing can stampede them faster than the assertion that something is "healthy" ... or "unhealthy". the popularity of Oat Bran in the '80s and the Alar scare come to mind. 

    Anti smokers are "health" worshipers. They will not see that smoking is a pleasure for some people, and that some pleasures are worth an attendant risk. Their advocacy of their position bypassed any relation to objective truth some decades ago. Their studies are flawed, and often deliberately mendacious. This doesn't mean that, in a larger sense. they are wrong. Inhaling smoke very 
probably ISN'T healthy. It quite possibly DOES lead to an increased risk of lung cancer. But smoking doesn't kill all smokers. It doesn't kill anywhere nearly as many smokers as the anti smokers would like to believe. And SHS 
probably doesn't kill ANYBODY. 

Fanaticism is obscuring whatever real information the anti smokers may have. Stubbornness is leading smokers to ignore even fairly clear data. 

    The combination isn't good. 



What sort of argument is "Everyone with common sense knows..."?  Five hundred years ago, everyone with common sense knew that the earth is flat and that Jews kill Christian babies.  One hundred years ago, common sense told you that the Wright Brothers were lunatics for thinking that their plane could fly.  Fifty years ago, people refused to believe what the Nazis were doing at Auschwitz because common sense told them that no one could be that inhuman.  Hell, some people still 
believe that today.  Common sense is no argument *whatsoever*. 
"Stands to reason" is a synonym for making a WAG -- a Wild-Assed Guess.  So spare us and yourself the embarrassment of common sense. As for morals, how about discussing the *ethics* of disenfranchising whole segments of the population?  You *dare* to impugn the character of one quarter of the nation without realising how patronising and 
intolerant you are?  The effrontery is mind-boggling.  If it is 
immoral to indulge in one's habits anywhere and everywhere, what do  you call the unconditional absolute claim to being the arbiter of morality?  There is a term for you, and it is BIGOT. 



Smoking is a vice and increases the risk of irreparable harm to the smoker's body.  The argument rests in a negative.  The assumption of anti-smoking activists and respective legislation is that the sensible thing to do is to avoid anything that might harm a person, i.e. exercising the instinct of self-preservation.  To which I answer that all activities are 
potentially harmful and running counter to said instinct.  The 
assumption that the instinct for self-preservation at all costs is 
paramount is faulty because it does not conform to the observable 
facts, i.e. human nature.  Self-indulgence, contrary behaviour and plain self-destructive tendencies are as much a human instinct as its 



I've heard similar arguments from Klansmen, insisting that those being lynched brought it on themselves.  The more I see of anti-smokers, the harder it is to tell them from racists.  Even their arguments are the same - right down to "they're dangerous to be around" and "they smell bad." 

DAVE HITT - The Hittman Chronicle


It is my considered, totally unprofessional and extremely subjective opinion (and you are welcome to quote me) that we have seen something of a revolution in the last fifty years.  Only nobody seems to know about it.  This is a revolution in the social arena.  Previously there used to be a clear understanding and acceptance that with every right there came a duty.  Each privilege had to be paid for with some sort of responsibility.  But in the last fifty years or so, this awareness of balance has shifted.  We no longer see the duties and 
responsibilities that accompany our rights.  We, as a society, are 
determined to enjoy our entitlements without paying for them.  We want government services and handouts but we do not want to pay the taxes that pay for them.  We want to be courted for our votes by politicians, but we no longer accept responsibility when their period of office turns into a cluster fuck (a rude but appropriate expression given the current occupant of Pennsylvania Ave.).  We want, we want, we 
want.  How many of us (speaking generically here) bother to vote?  To assess candidates on their merits?  To become active ourselves? Precious few, and becoming ever fewer.  I say: you wanna play, you gotta pay.  Actions come with consequences: it's a package deal.  Too many of us have forgotten this basic fact of life. I do not have an automatic, G*d-given right to government sponsored medical care; it is my life, and my responsibility to take care of myself and my own.  I do not have an automatic right to life, liberty  and the pursuit of happiness.  What I have is a DUTY to preserve what has been LENT me by my forebears.  We are not just heirs who can play with and squander their inheritance; we are stewards of our childrens' inheritance, and it is a pretty hefty set of ideals.  Yes, it's work, and it's bloody hard and uncomfortable at times, but no one else can do it.  And if I relinquish some of that burden (onto the government's broad shoulders), I have to accept that I have to pay the Man -- in money, in erosion of rights, in erosion of (self-)respect, in loss of 
independence and in increased intrusion. There are too many people out there who are happy to be shot of the burden of responsibility, and like an addict, they are happy to pay any price.  These people do not even recognise that what they are signing away is a duty, for them it is merely a pesky inconvenience in the daily round of aimless self-gratification.  And then they bitch and moan and blame the government for all their ills.



The most vehement anti-smokers are ex-smokers who quit for somebody else's reasons, not their own.  They have to demonize the weed in order not to be seduced by its lure.