It seems to me that, from top to bottom, tobacco control depends upon a series of excuses.
Let us think about Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ (see sidebar). He started the study in 1951. Somehow, he got enough money to mail 60,000 doctors in the UK to ask about their smoking habits. For some reason, the body which was the vehicle for that study was ‘Tropical Hygiene’ (I forget the full name). What ‘Tropical Hygiene’ had to do with smoking is not clear. By the way, the word ‘hygiene’ meant ‘health’, and not as has come to be the meaning, ‘cleanliness’. Some 40,000 doctors agreed to take part in the study. Some doctors were already ‘getting on’ and some were quite young. The great majority of them were smokers in one form or another, whether it be pipe, cigar or cigarette. Because a lot of the doctors were already ‘getting on’, Doll was supplied with a steady stream of death certificates. Even after only two or three years, he was able to produce a report which indicated that, proportionately, very few doctors who did not smoke, died from lung cancer, whereas far more doctors who smoked, proportionately, did so. Thus, if, say, 1 in 100 non-smokers died from LC, 15 in 100 smokers died from LC – 15 times greater. But the reality is that very few doctors died from LC – some 7%. 93% died from something else. If I was examining those figures, I would be curious about why so few non-smoking doctors died from LC.
Another factor is the time-scales, which is very important. Smoking for decades had no adverse effect until around the age of 60. When I say ‘smoking’, I mean inhaling clouds of tobacco smoke. Sorry for the use of the word ‘clouds’, but you get the idea.
If actual inhaling ‘clouds’ of tobacco smoke takes decades to have a deleterious effect, why should whiffs of tobacco smoke in the air not take centuries to have an effect?
And therein lies the ‘Excuse’. It is perfectly clear, based upon the ‘Doctors Study’ and all the other similar studies, that SHS would take centuries to cause LC. If I can see that clear indication, ‘academics’ must surely have known it be so. In fact, in a TV interview, Doll himself said that he would not be worried about being in the same room as a smoker.
So it is clear that the timescale for SHS danger was ignored, and that SHS danger was just an EXCUSE to impose smoking bans. The EXCUSE of SHS danger has continued to be used by TobCoN against all rational thought, and the irrational thought has spread throughout the world. How on Earth could that happen?
I really, really do not understand. Like Frank Smith I was utterly astonished when the ‘Smoking Ban’ was obeyed. I did not believe that it would happen. I really, really believed that it would be ignored. How stupid of me! I should have remembered that the witch hunts of a past era required the participation of ordinary people who reported the imaginary devilry of black-clad widows or spinsters, with their black cats, to provide the EXCUSE to terrify the populace.
For is it not true that terrifying the populace is the objective? How can you gain control over millions of people unless you terrify them?
Perhaps people like Simon Clark from ‘Forest’ should take note that almost all tobacco control involves frightening people.
It seems that Trump, in America, is trying to reverse the terror. Instead of Americans being terrified, he has decided to frighten foreigners. Is that Xenophobia? Au Contraire! It puts the onus to prove lack of xenophobia onto those who wish to enter the USA. It is the jihadists who are xenophobic.
If we think of ‘Xenophobia’ as excluding ‘undesirables’, it is easy to see how TobCoN is worse than any border control ideas. TobCoN is the essence of inbred brother/sister insemination, and it is deliberately so.
‘Control’, on the level of self determination, is an excrescence which any sensible politician should abjure, disown and fight against. A person cannot exercise self determination whilst being ‘under control’.
What is weird is that people have to be free to disobey laws to show that they are ‘free’. But the ‘Bully State’ is a monopoly. Is there one MP who has the erudition to show how dangerous and damaging the use of terror tactics are?
Tell me the name of even ONE!