I am a smoker, have been for 48 years and will be until the day I die, OR, until I decide to stop voluntarily. I will not be FORCED to "quit" by ANY "special interest" group, especially ones who use unproven "statistics".
I was raised in a generation where it was pounded into your brain, "you are not a quitter". Those were, and still are, powerful words. The more "certain people" or "special interest" groups, such as ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), tries to FORCE me to quit smoking, the more I dig my heels in and rebel against them.
Every time I read about the "dangers" of smoking or how "harmful" environmental tobacco smoke (a.k.a. ETS or Secondhand smoke) supposedly is, I get on my computer and do my own research. What I've found is amazing AND disturbing.
I've found research paper after research paper stating scientific FACT about how many smokers would need to be in a 20 ft. wide by 20 ft. long by 9 ft. high unventilated enclosure, all smoking at the same time, to bring the levels of carcinogens up to the "harmful" degree both ASH and the World Health Organization (a.k.a. WHO) claim is the danger level. Well, I can't see how you can get between 1,400 and 250,000 people into that room, no matter how much you scrunch them up.
I also found out that ASH and WHO forgot to mention that these so-called "studies" they used were done over a period of 40 to 50 years!!! The studies were conducted by following couples---smoking couples, one smoking and one non-smoking couples and non-smoking couples who worked in smoking environments. The results? Barely any significant difference in their health.....over 40 to 50 years!!! AMAZING!!!
The disturbing part came when I found out that both ASH and WHO were chastized by the World Courts for manipulating figures, giving false conclusions of incomplete studies and basically lying through their teeth to accomplish their goal of having a "smoke-free" planet.
Anyone can punch numbers into a computer and manipulate those numbers to give you the outcome that you want. Garbage in, garbage out.
You've heard John Banzhaf, the Founder of ASH, state unequivicably that 80% of smokers want to quit, BUT, what you didn't hear, or read, was the rest of that 80%'s statement --- they will do so when they feel they are ready. This is just an example of how ASH manipulates words to suit their needs.
The more I read, the angrier I got. ASH cares nothing about your or my health. They care about FORCING everyone to conform to THEIR chosen Lifestyle --- smoke-free --- and they're committed to achieving that goal by any and every means possible, including using Parental Guilt. These people are emotional terrorists!!
Recent studies have shown that the air quality in a well-ventilated area, where smokers are present, barely changes and the levels came no where close to the levels claimed by ASH, yet it was barely reported to the general public. Why is that?
I find it truly amazing that ASH and the anti-smokers can slam smokers, blame smoking for every ailment or disease out there, con governments into quickly passing laws and by-laws to ban smoking and kick all smokers to the curb, yet do absolutely NOTHING about that brown haze hanging over our cities and towns that we're all inhailing. Does that "air quality" not affect our health moreso than any tobacco product could?
Think about it. If ASH cared one iota about your health, your children's health or my health, don't you think they would go after the smog makers? When one really thinks about it, it just proves that smokers have been the target of one "special interest" group, and all because they want the world to kowtow to their preferred lifestyle. At least if they went after those causing the smog, they wouldn't have to change their initials....Action on Smog and Health.
ASH is doing everything they can to segregate ALL smokers from the rest of society. They've FORCED smoking Veterans from their Legion Halls, they've FORCED smoking Seniors from the comfort and safety of their well-ventilated smoking lounges, they've FORCED all smokers to the curb regardless of the weather and with no shelters provided for them. They've FORCED all businesses to conform to ASH' preferred lifestyle. ASH must be so proud of themselves everytime they pass a group of Seniors or Veterans standing out in storms at all times of the year. Our governments must be just as proud knowing that they helped ASH accomplish that task.
Sometimes I wonder if ANY politician THINKS about the consequences before they start imposing bans on anything. What happens when a Family sues both ASH and the governments for the wrongful and premature death of a smoking loved one who became deathly ill because they were FORCED to go outside to smoke, and that the death could have been prevented by allowing that loved one to stay within the confines of a well-ventilated room instead of being FORCED outdoors? Trust me, it's going to happen one of theses days.
Anyway, that's my opinion for now. Will write more another day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Government power real health hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke.
Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
Thomas Laprade
The biggest weapon the Crusaders have, is the ignorance of the public about second-hand smoke.
If the public was better and truthfully informed about second-hand smoke, there would be far less smoking bylaws in this country.
The objection to Crusaders is not that they try to make us think as they do, but that they try to make us do as they think.
Post a Comment