Today’s piece by Frank Davis is called The Tobacco Control Mentality. It concerns a Ca nadian study by their Tobacco Control industry. Frank sums

by Stewart Cowan

Today’s piece by Frank Davis is called The Tobacco Control Mentality. It concerns a Canadian study by their Tobacco Control industry. Frank sums up the gist of part of their “reasoning”,

“For Tobacco Control, it seems that the ideal individual is one who lives life in a prudent, calculating way and is ever-vigilant of risks, self-regulating and productive – and in accordance with expert advice.

“The “self-managing” or “self-governing” or “self-regulating” individual is one who exercises iron self-control. He resists the temptation to take up smoking. Or indeed anything else. He doesn’t take risks.

“Smokers, by contrast, exhibit lack of self-control. They don’t regulate or govern or manage themselves properly. Worse still, their propensity to engage in risky behaviours like smoking extends elsewhere…”

But, as he points out,

“After all, everybody engages in self-regulation of one kind or other. Nobody ever does exactly what they like the whole time.

“The real crime of the self-regulating smoker is to disregard experts and other authorities, and be an autonomous individual. And once he has disregarded authority in respect of smoking, it’s quite likely he’ll disregard it in respect of pretty well everything else as well.

“Tobacco Control’s ideal individual is one who believes what he’s told, and who does what he’s told, by authorities of one sort or other.”

He then gets to the reason for their zealotry,

“One might say that Tobacco Control is primarily about top-down moral regulation. This used once to be the concern of religions of one sort or other. But with the decline of religious observance, Tobacco Control (or Public Health) has stepped in to fill the moral vacuum. The virtues and vices of the old religions have been adopted wholesale, but renamed. The bishops and priests have been replaced by “experts” and “researchers”, and the old theology by “reason” and “science”. Good conduct has been replaced by “healthy living”, and failure to conduct one’s life in accordance with its tenets results in “premature death”. The “true believers” in this new pseudo-religion believe everything they’re told, and live in fear of a variety of new hobgoblins in the form of tobacco, alcohol, sugar, salt, fat, and carbon dioxide, which they live as much in fear of as the Devil himself.”

I had to read more of this ‘study’. It is very interesting. The language and attitudes are astounding.

Firstly, when did ‘tobacco control’ start calling themselves by the name? I consider it a derogatory term. When did it get to the stage where their superiority permitted them to be unapologetically forthright? Was it after the compliant “low-hanging fruit” they mentioned had been largely picked off with TC’s propaganda (incl. guilt trips)?

Not only is there a tobacco “epidemic” (according to the WHO), but there has been a “war on smoking in Euro–American societies” and of course, the first casualty in war is truth. But it’s a war, so lying is OK and in an age of moral relativism, truth is whatever you want it to be.

We know that a lot of TC’s coercion revolves around thinking about the cheeeldren, yet, “The popularity of smoking among young people challenges the progress of cessation and prevention campaigns.”

They note that (like elsewhere), smoking is more prevalent among poor people. Of course it is. The punitive taxes will make you poor(er) than the non-smoking, non-risk taking, weigher-upping, intelligent ones who listen to TC.

But I’m sure they mean people from lower-income families, meaning that their ‘war’ is against the financially worst-off in society. Part of that war is lobbying for increased taxes and ever more ingenious ways of dehumanising smokers. These are the people Tobacco Control are now trying to “reach”. Then there’s all their preaching. Hardly surprising that,

In recent years it has become clear that Canadian tobacco control faces a particular challenge with regard to youth smoking, with the prevalence of smoking in Canada highest (21%) in people aged 20–24 (Health Canada 2010).

Talking of preaching, I agree that these modern crusades are a replacement for religion; their ‘studies’ and edicts are the new scriptures. Except that they don’t seem to do forgiveness and they definitely don’t do ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’, although they probably think that their constant propaganda and impoverishing and making life difficult in many other ways is a tough kind of love which has to be done to make those at TC feel ‘spiritually’ awake.

You can tell by their language how they see their role and they admit their use of mind control like the cultists they are, “Not only are there age differentials with regard to smoking prevalence but interventionists are becoming increasingly concerned with the imbalanced effect of their programming across socially differentiated youth.”

I had thought that propaganda was their forte, yet they invented this:

In Ontario, ‘Stupid.ca’ is a well-known provincial programme targeting youth smoking.

Calling your ‘target’ (harder to reach fruit: unreceptive to TC) ‘stupid’ sounds, er, stupid. Or are they referring to themselves?

Anyway, type in that and you go directly to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. The second tab in is “About the Ministry”. Just like you would find on a typical religious website!

Back to the ‘study’. TC have various projects going on to try to influence the youth, in this vein,

They suggest that with the right kind of knowledge, young people can be made responsible and thereby make the right choices: that is, with the help of these tools, self-controlled and smart youth will be able to stop smoking.

It’s the same tried and failed method as used for curbing drug-use and teenage pregnancy/STDs. The result is that it encourages experimentation and guess what, it produces more adults engaging in what the do-gooders are supposedly railing against, so it keeps the social engineers in business for evermore.

It’s something I have noticed recently that people’s number one priority with their job is their salary rather than their service. I have lately experienced it personally in several fields, particularly in the ‘caring’ professions. And yet, I have had far more support and consideration from the least likely of sources.

Frank’s initial quote from the study about “‘the self who is expected to live life in a prudent, calculating way and to be ever-vigilant of risks, self-regulating and productive…” is a strange tactic to try to reach “the socially marginalised youth smoker”, who think they will live just about forever and are often prepared to take risks because that’s what young people do, whether knowingly or through ‘peer pressure’ or some other cue.

It doesn’t follow that they cannot also be “productive”.

It’s the constant nannying/bulling/restraints/legislation that seems to be causing people to be less productive. TC just haven’t a clue. They think they’re clever talking about “Foucault’s biopolitics of population” but when it comes down to it, they don’t understand how to reach the youth who continue to smoke. Worse (from their point of view – or is it – as I’ve previously hinted at?), their ideas seem to be meaningless at best and probably counter-productive.

I found this interesting, Youth smokers are thus not only framed as smokers: smoking appears to engender other deviant social and behavioural tendencies. So, smoking is “deviant”. I suppose it would be, according to their religion.

Then there’s this cracker,

A number of interviewees made comparisons between tobacco and illicit drugs, particularly crack cocaine, expressing the view that in Vancouver tobacco use was seen to be on par with smoking crack.

Many years ago, in the UK, I noticed that tobacco and alcohol were being bundled in with illicit drugs. Again, weird propaganda which may have encouraged those normal smokers and drinkers to experiment with these ‘other drugs’?

So confused are they now in Vancouver that they don’t seem to know the difference between a cigarette and crack. Does this kind of weirdness go part and parcel with the dumbing down of ‘education’? Or just the constant bleating about cigarettes being a ‘drug’?

Don’t choke on your coffee at this next bit,

The one thing that we most desperately need in this province is funding for NRTs, nicotine replacement therapy or pharma, pharmacotherapy – [Zyban, Champex]…

The nicotine replacement therapies are well-known for being practically useless. Champix/Chantix and Zyban have been linked to hundreds of suicides. In July 2009, America’s FDA ordered the makers, Pfizer and GSK, to put warnings on the boxes about the risk of “serious mental health events”

“The US Food and Drug Administration said that the warnings on Chantix (varenicline) and Zyban (bupropion) will highlight the risk of changes in behaviour, “depressed mood hostility, and suicidal thoughts when taking these drugs”.”

Yet doctors still prescribe these killers.

You will choke on this one. These are the thoughts of one practitioner:

I think that it is more the … not lobbying, I am using the wrong term, but this kind of demonisation that we have done of smokers that has made people stop smoking. The smoker is the ‘big bad guy’, after the paedophile comes the smoker practically, these days, in our society, the bad guys. You see a smoker outside smoking a cigarette, children, ‘Oh’ and they look at the smoker with big wide eyes as though he was going to kill a baby seal in Alaska. It’s the same thing for them, it is really the demon. They are really viewed, we marginalise, we really, really do marginalise smokers, the more we do, the less place smokers have.

They do acknowledge the “unintended consequence”, “that tobacco control discourse and
policy may even be creating a bond among those leftover people who smoke.”

The strange reasoning throughout seems to be that if you stopped the youth from smoking then all their other ‘risky’ behaviour would go away, that their ‘mental issues’ would be healed and that their ‘socio-economic’ status would be improved.

Maybe this shows, more than anything, that these social engineers live on a different planet?

5 comments


  1. In fact the magical mystical statiscal study has been used to drive radical political agendas for well over 100 years and was so bad even Mark Twain wrote about in 1894…….

    Mark Twain said it right over a hundred years ago:

    “The Moral Statistician.”
    Originally published in Sketches, Old and New, 1893

    “I don’t want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it.

    I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man’s health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years’ indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc. etc. And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc. etc. You never see more than one side of the question.

    You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation, and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime (which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone), nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from not smoking. Of course you can save money by denying yourself all those little vicious enjoyments for fifty years; but then what can you do with it? What use can you put it to? Money can’t save your infinitesimal soul. All the use that money can be put to is to purchase comfort and enjoyment in this life; therefore, as you are an enemy to comfort and enjoyment where is the use of accumulating cash?

    It won’t do for you to say that you can use it to better purpose in furnishing a good table, and in charities, and in supporting tract societies, because you know yourself that you people who have no petty vices are never known to give away a cent, and that you stint yourselves so in the matter of food that you are always feeble and hungry. And you never dare to laugh in the daytime for fear some poor wretch, seeing you in a good humor, will try to borrow a dollar of you; and in church you are always down on your knees, with your ears buried in the cushion, when the contribution-box comes around; and you never give the revenue officers a full statement of your income.

    Now you know all these things yourself, don’t you? Very well, then, what is the use of your stringing out your miserable lives to a lean and withered old age? What is the use of your saving money that is so utterly worthless to you? In a word, why don’t you go off somewhere and die, and not be always trying to seduce people into becoming as ornery and unlovable as you are yourselves, by your villainous “moral statistics”?”

    Also, Benjamin Franklin said,
    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”


  2. Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

    It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

    http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/

    (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
    Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
    2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
    ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
    long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
    said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
    cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
    (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
    arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
    to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
    therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
    lung cancer.

    [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
    Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
    use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
    causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
    cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
    it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
    individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
    (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
    [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
    point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
    case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
    consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
    knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
    individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
    intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
    life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
    [7.181]).


  3. Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science

    Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)

    An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
    Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

    Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
    proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
    placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

    Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
    relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
    different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
    perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
    one risk factor, including social factors.

    Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

    But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an
    epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful
    to epidemiology.”

    But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought
    it was public health that mattered!

    we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that
    Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they
    see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through
    the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
    would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.

    Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel
    after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Sl-utz and Nutz Implant
    Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything
    other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack
    of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.

    The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn
    back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of
    corporate paid witnesses with selective vision?
    Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
    lives that selective blindness has caused!


  4. The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby

    Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.

    spiked-onlinedotcom/newsite/article/13287#dotU6ibAzYo59A


  5. Perhaps you would rather just outlaw yourselves and all the other human carcinogen machines from even existing! Or the New Building VOC’s that release constantly in new buildings that also can create a cancer risk. He should also want to ban Cooking,Campfires, Industrial output, Barbecuing,Breathing,having indoor plants that release constant Isoprene! You see no matter the contempt and daily scares these folks toss out you will never escape natural elements and chemicals such as whats in tobacco smoke or the normal everyday air we all breathe and exhale. We are all sources of the same thing these prohibitionists are trying to outlaw and criminalize!

    NIH report on carcinogens

    If you want to learn about which chemicals cause cancer, or just want to feel more paranoid about getting cancer, check out the 2012 NIH report on carcinogens.

    One of the more exciting findings is that human beings themselves are possible carcinogens, by virtue of their natural emissions of isoprene:

    Isoprene is formed endogenously in humans at a rate of 0.15 µmol/kg
    of body weight per hour, equivalent to approximately 2 to 4 mg/kg per
    day (Taalman 1996), and is the major hydrocarbon in human breath
    (accounting for up to 70% of exhaled hydrocarbons)

    Don’t breathe on me!

    Natural occurrences[edit]

    Isoprene is produced and emitted by many species of trees into the atmosphere (major producers are oaks, poplars, eucalyptus, and some legumes). The yearly production of isoprene emissions by vegetation is around 600 million tonnes, with half that coming from tropical broadleaf trees and the remainder coming from shrubs.[1] This is about equivalent to methane emission into the atmosphere and accounts for ~1/3 of all hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere.

Leave a Reply