At Last – Signs’ of ‘Truth’ Overcoming Propaganda’

The reader will observe that the word truth is in inverted commas. I was directed to a site called ‘Science Direct’ (H/T xxx) about the failure of ‘science’ to explain how much safer ecigs, and smokeless tobacco, were than combustibles:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460317300539

I don’t know anything about ‘Science Direct’, as to how popular as a journal it is. Suffice to say that the article seems to have been well researched and the authors put a lot of time into it.

But there is a flagrant error which goes unobserved again and again and again. It is that ‘teenage’ is a short period of time.

For years and years, Tobacco Control has juxtaposed ‘children and young people’. Neither of those two terms are accurate. Both are flexible. Science does not do ‘flexible’ unless flexibility is the topic. For example, radiation waves, such as light, are flexible, but gravity is not. Well, not until Einstein came along. Children flow into their teens and then into adulthood. Three three stages are enough. If you want to use the term ‘young children’, then you need also to be able to use the term ‘old children’. I have never seen such a term. But, in our language, we DO use the term ‘young children’ if it is necessary to specify, in a general sort of way, that a child has gone beyond being a baby but is not yet old enough to understand things with any clarity. How about ‘Young Adults’? What is the opposite? ‘Old Adults’?

It is a legal fact (since a line has to be drawn somewhere) that a person reaches his ‘majority’ on his 18th birthday, no matter how immature he might be. He becomes an adult. There is no such thing as a ‘young adult’ which can be defined. Such terms are propaganda and nothing but propaganda. And they know it.

It should be noted that a person of sevenTEEN and a person of eighTEEN, are both still ‘teens’. That fact throws all the propaganda about ‘children and young adults’ into the category of LIES, since it lumps a group of people from the age of zero to an unspecified upper limit into the same pot.

To avoid the implications of the short period of time which elapses in which a person is a teenager (13 to 19 – only seven years) the tyrants produced a ‘label’ – young adults. NO, they are not young adults. They are in transition, and you cannot label them.

The ‘study’ which I linked to makes the classic mistake, which is that teenage behaviour has a PURPOSE. It does not, other than amusement. Trying a cig or an ecig is amusement and nothing else. The future behaviour of teens cannot be predicted from what they do as teens. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise, since ‘the teens’ are in a state of transition from childhood to adulthood. “Almost all smokers start smoking in their teens” was probably true when ‘kids’ left school at 16 and started to earn. But Doll’s Doctors Study stated that the doctors, on average, started smoking at nineteen and a half. It is easy to see why that was – working class kids started earning, and were expected to earn, years before the trainee doctors were. It is not unlikely that working class, sixteen-year old earners also started drinking beer before trainee doctors.

But there is an even worse assumption, which is that youths were DRIVEN to smoke by evil tobacco companies. We should note that companies are things and can be neither evil nor good. I don’t recall any tobacco company executive or worker ever being tried for the crime of ‘inducing smoking’.

But, it gets even worse. Imagine lumping all alcoholic drinks into one evil devilment. Whether wine, beer, spirits – all are precisely equally evil. No distinction is made at all. All are guilty. That is what Prohibition in the USA around 1900 was. All are equally evil. But, to make things even sillier, it was THE PLACE, the saloon, which was vilified.

The linked study is false. It really is. It says that ecigs are harmful. Read it and you will see that stated within the first few sentences. Where is the evidence in real life that they are even remotely harmful? There is none. Well, that is unless you take a whiff of diesel fumes as being dangerous.

Perhaps we smokers should try to change the vocabulary. Perhaps we should demand to know if ‘harmful’ equals ‘dangerous’. For example, scratching your skin is harmful, but it is not dangerous (normally).

Further, no account whatsoever was paid to PLEASURE in that study. It was as though pleasure does not exist. But a recent survey of smokers said that 95% of smokers smoke for the pleasure. Would smokers continue to smoke if tobacco tasted foul? Tobacco is an acquired taste, as is alcohol, but it does not taste foul. For children, it tastes foul.

So you can see why I put ‘Truth’ inside inverted commas. That study ‘invents’ its own truth. But its truth is only a tiny bit of reality. Vapers have, for whatever reasons, stopped or reduced smoking. That has been their decision. They may have done so for financial reasons rather than health reasons, or from being able to vape in pubs, or any other complication. But none of these reasons register on the TC radar. They do not exist. The way that TC thinks is to argue about whether or not it is a good idea TO FORCE smokers to use ecigs. Remember that propaganda is a type of force.

Where are the psychologists when you want them? They are hidden in Universities doing fuck-all and avoiding their duty as ‘experts’.

What an utterly, totally, incredible mess! Throughout the world, billions of people ENJOY tobacco. There are many and varied varieties with all sorts of tastes, some strong and some weak, some suitable for cigars and some for pipes, and some for hookah, and some for chewing and some for snus and some for snuff. There are all sorts of variations and blends.

There really must be some DEVIL at work. It is the only explanation for political, medical, MSM, legal, etc, collusion. And what is that DEVIL? It is the likes of Rockefeller, Bloomberg, Gates, and all the other virtuous billionaires who want to atone for their sins by forcing good people to attack other good people.

It is sincerely to be hoped that Billionaire Trump can counter the waning effect the attempts of sinners like Gates, to atone for their sins by using their wealth to force others to atone for the sins of smoking etc. What those arse-holes miss is that they are not The Pope, or the Chief Rabbi, or the Top Muslim. They are no more than excessively rich individuals, and it would be a good idea if the stuck the wealth in a bank account and left it there, and left the rest of us alone. Or, perhaps, they could fund all the organisations which keep coming on TV asking for £2 per month, for all sorts or silly reasons (does anyone believe that tiny African children have plastic cups to fish water out of muddy puddles?).

But it is true that, despite my criticisms, the above study suggests a MASSIVELY more positive a gateway FROM smoking than TO smoking. It may well be that a few youths, transing from childhood to adulthood, might venture from trying an ecig to trying a cig. I cannot understand how serious ‘professors’ can simplify such actions as though they were the only influences in the lives of teens.

What is absolutely the worst scenario is that politicians give these people a scrap of notice. The best thing that Trump could do, if he has the power, is to remove all Federal funding. But that also applies in the UK. Who pays for ‘Global Warming’ academics to strut around?

Advertisements

4 Responses to “At Last – Signs’ of ‘Truth’ Overcoming Propaganda’”

  1. TheBlockedDwarf Says:

    I don’t recall any tobacco company executive or worker ever being tried for the crime of ‘inducing smoking’.

    Give it time Mate, give it time!

    • junican Says:

      Ah Yes – of course – exhuming the bodies of dead tobacco company executives, putting the skeletons in the dock and finding them guilty of first degree murder, and then electrocuting the skeletons. Figures.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: