Regaining the ‘Benefit’ of Smoking

In a previous post, I mentioned Carl Phillips’s essay about the language of the Zealots and Charlatans of The Tobacco Control Industry. That language is constructed in the manner of ‘New Speak’, where ‘peace’ means ‘war’. In fact, in a way, we can see this in the Middle East and in the Ukraine at the moment. Peace will be achieved by bombing and blowing to bits the ISIS rebels. In the Ukraine, peace will be achieved by shooting down civilian aircraft. To have peace, there must be war. That is the ‘New Think’. Thus, to have a healthy society, the only way is to wage war on those who deny people ‘free choice’. War is peace. To enable ‘free choice’, it is necessary to defeat Big Tobacco in a war, because Big T uses ‘marketing’ to addict people to tobacco, and thus deny them ‘free choice’. Even the phrase “Smoke-free” is a distortion, since it ought to read, at best, “Without the presence of smoke”, or even, “Smokeless”, meaning without smoke.

In the dictionary of Tobacco Control, there is no such word as ‘benefit’ related to smoking. If you said to one of the brainwashed Zealots, “People who enjoy tobacco who write novels report that they would be unable to write if they were deprived of their cigarettes/pipes/cigars”, the Zealots would have a ‘language’ response. There are various responses, but, in the ‘New Speak’, the Zealots would probably say, “That is a delusion engineered by Big Tobacco. Such statement are anecdotal. Our surveys and studies show that 70% of smoking authors want to quit. 400, 000 people die in the USA each year because they smoked tobacco. Nothing is more important than the eradication of the smoking epidemic and tobacco companies”

No benefit from the enjoyment of tobacco. None whatsoever.

Do you see the critical language aberration? In the ‘New Speak’, the word ‘enjoyment’ has been expunged.


I think that we are seeing the same trick on Alcohol Control and Fat Control. Again, the word ‘pleasure’ has been expunged from the language of the Zealots. The word ‘pleasure’ has been replaced by the word ‘addiction’. I do not gain the benefit of ‘pleasure’ from eating chocolate; I gain the reduction of the pain of deprivation – aka ‘addiction’.


Erm…. NO! NO! NO! Smokers get REAL PLEASURE from smoking, but, since no ‘studies’ have been conducted into this matter, there is no evidence. Has YouGov ever produced a survey asking smokers whether or not they enjoy tobacco? Anecdotally, I can say, in my own experience, that, after stopping smoking for a whole year, the first cigarette that I smoked after a whole year was WONDERFUL BEYOND IMAGINING. It made me a bit dizzy, at first, but it was wonderful.


We must do our damnedest to negate the Zealot’s expurgation of ‘pleasure’. It is great to argue with Zealots on newspaper sites, but do not fall into the trap of using their language. In the past, more than 70% of men smoked. They did so because they ENJOYED smoking, and for no other reason.

I have noticed that the Zealots, and that includes the people that I admire as being sincere, like Siegel and Phillips, also avoid the word ‘pleasure’ like the plague.


What do we blatherers on the internet want? Is it not VARIETY? Is it not freedom to choose those activities or substances from which we gain pleasure? Thus, an entrepreneur who takes the risk of opening a bar explicitly for smokers should be supported. But the language of the Zealots would portray that person as a murderer – except that the language would avoid such words, and, instead, would portray the entrepreneur as one who “fills the air with death-dealing toxins”.

We must consider the idea that we enjoy these ‘death-dealing’ toxins. In fact, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to say that these ‘death-dealing’ toxins are only enjoyable because the are ‘death-dealing’. The greater the pleasure, the higher the risk. Nothing else makes sense.

What should be the ‘message’ of Public Heath? It most certainly ought not be ‘prohibitive’ since prohibition creates conflict and crime. Actually, the obvious answer is that “Public Health” as presently constituted, is a fraud. It requires ‘obedience’. WE WILL NOT OBEY.

The people that I am aware of who reject the New Puritans who have taken over “Public Health” are Carl Phillips and Michael Siegel, although both are reluctant to admit, for example, that SHS is harmless to healthy people. Nor are they willing to admit that children of smokers are likely to suffer less asthma.

So even people such as Siegel and Phillips are guilty of using the language of the Zealots, even though they decry it.

But, to be fair, it is very difficult to know when the ‘New Speak’ language is  in use.


But we know that there ARE benefits from the enjoyment of tobacco.

To bed.


9 Responses to “Regaining the ‘Benefit’ of Smoking”

  1. jack davidson (@Jack40039334) Says:

    Tobacco Teachings, Up in Smoke?

    August 1, 2014

    Guest Post

    by Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown Law; Co-Faculty Advisor, Georgetown University Law Center ACS Student Chapter

    Imagine a government warning on tobacco products that gave nearly equal prominence to both the pleasures and pains of using tobacco products. The “warning” would tell citizens that whether they should use tobacco products or not was – despite the government’s long practice of recommending against such use – actually a pretty close case. Tobacco use is just so pleasurable, it turns out, that its risks – of bad health, of early death – might be worth it.

    Or imagine a parent saying the same thing to her child: here are the risks of using tobacco products, she’d say, but here on the other side are the wonderful pleasures. You make the call; it’s too close for me to judge.

    Despite its strangeness, this is exactly the kind of statement the White House and the Food and Drug Administration have collaborated in propounding in the context of a proposed rule deeming certain tobacco products subject to FDA regulation under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Economists from the FDA and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget published a study purporting to estimate the amount by which the health benefits of tobacco use reduction are offset by a loss of the pleasure of using such products. When the FDA’s proposed rule on tobacco products went to the White House for review, White House economists, rather than placing this study in the dustbin where it belonged, doubled down on its strange analysis. Indeed, they ended up increasing the FDA’s estimate of the extent to which the “lost pleasure” associated with reducing tobacco use offsets the health benefits to be gained.

    The FDA and the White House, in short, apparently believe just what the odd announcement I posited at the outset would suggest: it is a really close case whether reducing tobacco use is a good idea. Never mind that people addicted to tobacco use tobacco mostly to forestall the displeasure of not feeding their addiction. Never mind that most people who become addicted to tobacco start using tobacco products as adolescents, when fine balancing of present pleasures against future risks is elusive. No matter. The FDA and the White House still apparently believe decisions about tobacco use are the product of rational analysis, and that rational analysis just might favor tobacco.

    The fact that the strange FDA/White House analysis is buried deep in regulatory documents that few read, and further hidden in soothingly arcane language like “the welfare gain ratio,” does not make it any more palatable. In fact, the government’s two faces on this topic – loudly recommending against tobacco use while quietly countermanding this message – are troubling in and of themselves, especially in an administration publicly committed to openness and transparency.

    As the comment period on the FDA’s proposed rule on tobacco products draws to a close, the FDA and the White House should drop the bizarre suggestion that the pleasure of continued addiction should be weighed in the same scales – and at close to the same level – as the risks to health and life the addiction poses.

    It is worth remembering that White House review of agencies’ rules, including the FDA’s rule on tobacco products, takes place at the direction of President Obama. Maybe someone should ask him if the FDA/White House analysis of the balance between lost pleasure and lost health and life is sensible. I very much doubt this is how he advises his daughters when it comes to tobacco use: it may be good, it may be bad, it’s a close case, you make the call. If this isn’t what he says in private, perhaps it isn’t what the FDA and OMB should suggest in public.

  2. jack davidson (@Jack40039334) Says:

    Yep Cousin even the government admits tobacco gives pleasure.

    It really sent the Nazis into Panic mode too.

  3. west2 Says:

    “both are reluctant to admit, for example, that SHS is harmless to healthy people”

    Carl V Phillips in a reply to Crossbow:
    “Take a close look at the testimony I write. It does not concede that ETS junk science is right even while pointing out that vapor is entirely different from ETS. But it most certainly does not concede that ETS is measurably harmful. The naive readers who think ETS is harmful will see what they want, but sophisticated readers will see that I am not actually saying that ETS is killing people.”

    I have always drawn a distinction between Dr Siegel and Dr Phillips. I gave up on “The rest of the story” when Dr Siegel showed a compete empathy for Gaby’s cigarette denied patient. (Can’t find the commentary on that now, as it along with much of the early science commentary seems to have gone).

  4. west2 Says:

    Thet should be “Complete lack of empathy”

  5. jack davidson (@Jack40039334) Says:

    Well since Carl Phillips is an activist eptidemiologist and admits as much I take a lot of what he says at a grain of salt. He wants to make his point but he doesn’t want to completely destroy what the SHS junk science is because that would destroy his own fabled epidemiology for his own agendas what ever they might be.

  6. jack davidson (@Jack40039334) Says:

    Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science
    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 Slutz 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!

  7. moss Says:

    My word, JD and W 2. Your comments have come in like a breath of fresh air -, but this is what this blog is all about – the truth of what’s going on out there, and what they are trying to foist upon us. Many of us are fully aw\re of what it’s all about, but we are drowning in the gullibility of, the lesser minded –

  8. junican Says:

    Forgive failure to respond individually – busy, busy over the last day or two.
    Siegel has ‘hang-ups’ of his own. He was personally involved in ‘proving’ that SHS is harmful, so he can hardly be expected to retract, although he should do. Philips really believes the smoking kills, but at least he does not demand prohibitions. He wants THR (Tobacco Harm Reduction).
    But there is something that both these professors have in common – they believe that academia has the expertise to decide.
    If that were so, then no one would be allowed to stand for Parliament except ‘professors and doctors’, because they are the only people who are sufficiently expert to decide things. However, we surely must know that, if that were so, nothing would ever be decided until masses of studies had been done and analysed to death – by which time, the problem would have overwhelmed us. Imagine what would have happened in the Falklands, after the Argentinian invasion, had academics been in charge. I shall not go there, but you get the picture.
    But both of them have seen that ‘the movement’ has been hi-jacked by Zealots and Charlatans, and that is the most important thing.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: