Conspiracy and its Implementation

We Smokers are often squashed by accusations that we see ‘conspiracies’ where there are none. Smoking bans in the open air around hospitals, but physically within the boundaries of the hospital delineation in terms of land surface area, are justified because hospitals are hospitals. There is no further justification. Sure, ‘tobacco smoke drifting into wards via open windows’ has been used as an excuse, but no one with a reasonable level of intelligence could ignore the fumes from motor vehicles and all the other ‘polluters’, which are far more intense within the hospital grounds than tobacco smoke. That is especially true of Bolton Hospital. It actually has a road running through the centre of it, very close to the entrance and the wards, which is used by cars, busses, vans, delivery vehicles, waste collection vehicles, and all that. That road is extremely busy. There is a continuous stream of cars, taxis, vans, busses, etc.

An objective ‘study’ of air quality around that place would no doubt whatsoever discover that air pollutants were coming from great big vehicles, and not from little people smoking.

The people who claim that smokers in those places contribute harmful pollution to the air, are knowingly conspiring, since, to claim that tobacco smoke is significant, they must have measured the pollution levels. Tobacco smoke? Diesel fumes? Petrol fumes? Emissions from the hospital incinerator? Discarded human body parts and waste are incinerated. Imagine the cloud of carcinogens released by that practice. But it is alright because it is done during the night. No one breaths during the night, do they?

What is weird about the anti-smoking conspiracy is that no one knows who started it and who is continuing it. It is shrouded in mystery. We have reasonable knowledge of the effects of the conspiracy, but little knowledge of what power was used to force Governments to comply.

But it may well be that not much force was required. It may well be that ‘MORALITY’ was the important thing.

So we are back to the same ‘ethic’ as was the case in the Prohibition Era in the USA. Health is just an excuse. The reality is ‘morals’. So we have Glanz et al declaring that ecigs are ‘morally’ incorrect, since there is a possibility that A youth might try a puff on an ecig and then lose all self-control and, zombie-like, gravitate to tobacco.

I am tired and must to bed.

I suspect that MP support of smoking bans has ALWAYS been ‘ethical’. Perhaps that view is justified, but it seems to me to be ‘the easy way out’.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Conspiracy and its Implementation”

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    Junican, I believe the antismoking movement is a conspiracy. The evidence supporting it is substantial. Falsified studies (like the heart attacks miracles), suppression of dissent, lack of neutral evidence, and relentless propaganda are cornerstones of the movement. So are self-declared ‘confidence games’. What’s lacking the the reasons for this mass fraud and persecution of smokers.

    • Smoking Lamp Says:

      Junican, forgive the typo. Autocorrect got ahead of me!

      • junican Says:

        ‘Jouncing’? What on Earth is that? Can one ‘jounce’ on a bed? Sounds lovely.
        Maybe I should change ‘Junican’ to ‘Jouncing’. I’ll keep it in mind.

  2. Samuel Says:

    It is always a matter of money and effective resistance. Regular people are rarely organized and united to resist having their pockets picked. Especially so since it’s the pickpockets who know they are going to steal some money and have carefully prepared their victims long before the big event begins. It is also, usually, the ones with lots of money who are aware there might be thieves in the crowd and who take precautions.
    For an example: in the US (and doubtless in anywhere else such a thing could be effected once those governments saw the American pocket pickers get away with it – they all learn from example) it was decided that phosphorus was a dangerous chemical that was getting into streams and causing algal blooms and killing fish. As anyone with a right sized brain knows the phosphorus comes from fertilized applied to farms. Did the government do anything to control excess fertilizing by huge agricultural corporations? No. The government made it a “crime” to add phosphorus to laundry detergent (where it helps the detergent bind to the grease and dirt so it can be cleanly rinsed from fabric). In a related move it was discovered that water was becoming scarce because farmers were taking too much from rivers, streams or pumping from aquifers. Did the government threated the profits of agribusiness? No. It mandated flow restrictors on showers, reduced tank sizes on toilets, criminal prosecution for lawn watering or car washing and outlawed the sale of unapproved, less “efficient” washing machines.
    The real problems are ignored while softer targets are used as punching bags. The big tobacco companies don’t care about government taxes or government restrictions (so long as full prohibition isn’t rolled out) They will still have customers and still enjoy unprecedented profits. It is you and I that suffer from higher prices, victimization, shaming and criminalization of behaviors that cause no harm to anyone because we are easy to assault and they laid it all out years in advance how smoking (and thus smokers) is a “dirty habit” and a sign of a weak, dirty, addicted and sub-human individual who all should shun. The smoker is made to feel ashamed of himself and believe all his troubles are his own fault and the real criminals who assault and rob him he praises for their kindly efforts to reform and save him from himself.

    • junican Says:

      Yes, I have read about those matters before. I remember reading about farms being prohibited from bottling their own milk because it was not pasteurised, or something like that. Again, that benefits the big milk companies. These anti small business regs always have a sheen of ‘public health’, but they are commercial stitch-ups.

  3. smokingscot Says:

    The person who started all this is Professor John Banzhaf. He along with Ralph Nader were responsible for the ban on smoking in aircraft.

    It’s interesting how he has used the law to his advantage and it’s all listed on his Wiki page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Banzhaf_III

    The photo is out of date, however this is what he looked like in 2008, where he’s described as one of the most powerful men in Washington.

    http://www.corazonproductions.ca/characters/?aid=4

    Banzhaf established Action on Smoking and Health. It was through that organ they succeeded in petitioning the WHO to tackle the smoking issue and he was co-writer of what is now known as FCTC.

    Simply put he’s made a lucrative career out of lawsuits related to smoking. But he’s got a whole stack of other interests, which he lets us know about via his twitter account.

    https://twitter.com/ProfBanzhaf?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    • junican Says:

      Ah, Banzhaf. Certainly a ‘big player’ on the legal side. I have no doubt that he is very rich, obese and dissolute.
      But I doubt that he would have got such leverage without massive assistance from the likes of Rockefeller.
      Is it not weird how these multi-billionaires always seem to be against pleasure and fun?
      Those people are the direct opposite of ‘philanthropists’.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: