If you as a smoker wish to regain your self-respect stop saying, you are sorry. Stop agreeing with the claims tobacco is dangerous in fact it is not some cigarettes are, no one is interested enough to tell us which. Cigarettes are a legal product the use of which does not afford others the right to steal your rights as an individual; the right to employment, housing, healthcare and security of the person under the law. If the government seeks to change the rules or the norm, they should do so with respect to all who are affected. Creating hate campaigns against their own citizens is a criminal act, which should be punished. If you wish them to stop attacking you, your indefensible position as a smoker needs to be replaced by their indefensible position as Neanderthals and industry stooges.
If hospitality workers demand protection, make them wear safety equipment like any other trade where a danger is perceived to exist. Steel toe boots and hardhats are acceptable precautions why did we not ban sharp objects or the forces of gravity? As for the general public if they wish to avoid cigarette smoke, placing a sign on the door will suffice in warnings where smoke may be encountered. When larger dangers exist in outdoor air the futility of smoking bans becomes laughable. Simple ideas do serve well if common sense and credible science were allowed to prevail. If smoking does cause such a degree of death and destruction, why has the government not banned it decades ago? Pot smoking was banned although no such dangers have been claimed allowing for the profits of organized crime to flourish while the cost of policing and incarcerations soared. Perhaps in keeping with the stability of government; respect needs to be maintained. In that light how could a government admit the causes of cancers and smoking related diseases might be actually more strongly related to other causes and Government actions. The identity of those causes might prove expensive to those really producing the devastation and to political support of those holding the bulk of the wealth and favors owed through philanthropy. If people started to realize how little control governments really have, many would question why should we continue to pay taxes or listen to the rule of law, when those laws are seen to be products for sale to the highest bidder.
Smokers need to wake up, the answer to their plight was there all along; start asking politicians how you could possibly defend such inhumane attitudes toward law abiding friends and neighbors in self gratuitous promotion of sin taxes and industry protections.
Smokers beyond the value of theoretic research can show real sound evidentiary proof Tobacco plays a small role in what are claimed to be smoking related diseases despite what the current witch hunt slogans and ad agency preparations have inspired. For evaluation of the present, we can look to the proof in historical context to illustrate the huge inconsistencies in what is being promoted.
In the 1950s in the UK and later by the American surgeon general the claims Tobacco is the root cause of all major diseases in the industrialized world. With this in mind why was the industry allowed to grow while little complaint or restrictions of ingredients were established for the following 55 years? Has the Government been negligent in their duty to protection of its citizens or are they already aware the public perception in harm assessment is dead wrong? With the invention of smoking bans, no common sense or degree of intelligence can explain; with the levels of concentrations consumed, how can the danger to non-smokers be greater than the danger to smokers without considerable manipulation of scientific opinion? Too many inconsistencies with too little explanations beyond the attack of the curious as an industry, advocate while the ban fans consistently direct themselves to the benefit of the Tobacco industry while punishing the victims.
In the UK in 1954, this is what was determined;
Read
“What is already known on this matter is that there has been an increase in deaths from lung cancer in this country which began in 1919 and has continued ever since. That increase is much greater in males than in female in 1931, the number of deaths attributed to lung cancer in England and Wales was1, 358 for males and 522 for females. In 1952, there were 11,981 male and 2,237 female deaths from this cause. The highest mortality from lung cancer in males occurred in the 65-74 age group while in females the highest rate occurred in the 75 and over age group. Comparable increases have been reported in all countries from which reliable statistics are available. Tobacco smoking plays some part in this increase but it is certain that it cannot be the only factor since the disease occurs in non-smokers. All that can be said at present is that there is a presumption that smoking may cause lung cancer. Furthermore, although the risk of contracting the disease appears to increase with the amount smoked, particularly of cigarettes, no reliable estimate can be made of the precise effect of smoking.”
Prior to 1919 UK lung cancer was almost nonexistent by 1931 we saw 880 deaths in the next 20 years deaths increased to 14,218 Smoking certainly existed long before 1919 no significant increase in use occurred after 1919 which could equate the dramatic rise in cancer. So why was there such a dramatic increase between 1931 and 1952 in 20 years such a huge increase certainly should have an identifiable and specific cause. Doll in his research originally investigated asphalt as a possible cause of the Cancer increases, he abandoned this in favor of Tobacco quite a segue considering good science seemed to be on the right track in perusing oil products consistent with the increase in use, they mirrored identically the increase in mortality. Smoking although they announced at the time was a significant contributing cause, something else was going on here. Doll could not know of the interaction in use of asbestos in cigarette filters or the dangers of Dioxins in the increasing use of chlorine in the infancy of the growing cigarette industries. An industry which if responsible for the increases in cancer was well behind the actual mortality growth if you consider the now determined 20-30 year lag between use and onset of disease. The decreases in Tobacco use since 1960 in fact a 2/3 reduction also lacked a resulting decrease in mortality. The first decrease in cancers ever in fact corresponds perfectly with the decrease in environmental Dioxins since 1986 with a 8.7 year half life the reductions right on target showed mirrored reductions in cancers in 2003. Smoking bans therefore are necessary to preserve the lie, as we will see additional reductions in cancers as Dioxin levels continue to decrease.
" Johnny the envelope please"; The hypocrites in New York who supported a smoking ban are well aware a spike in Cancers will occur there soon due to environmental Dioxins caused by the 911 tragedy. When the cancer cluster is seen, it will be explained as surprising or may not be reported at all. The bans will not result in smoking related reductions to the contrary if you watch the timelines those reductions will not occur until 15 years after the tragedy. For the elderly the ability to purge the toxins will be understandably reduced. For many a shortened life as a result is inevitable. The ban fans will of course take credit for the eventual reductions and as always, ignore the actual dates to suit their means. The fact Dioxins have never been identified as a cause of cancer in smoking tells us a lot. The public believes science has not found a link, with proof in hand smoking could cause cancer why the hesitation in showing the proof? The answer is more dangerous than the question so it suits the stakeholders purposes to keep the mystery alive. Simply banning the use of chlorine from cigarettes could have saved the lives of millions. The resistance and cover-up of Agent Orange disease to American troops and how hard those affected had to fight to be compensated says a lot as well. The major effect of Agent Orange was chlorine related long term Dioxin poisoning. Smokers in a class action could similarly prove with good science how governments have allowed Cancers and smoking related diseases to continue without regulation simply to cover up the bigger lie; the cause of the majority of those so called smoking related diseases more correctly they should have been coined petrochemical and chlorine related diseases. At minimum Dioxin related diseases, which are undoubtedly, the major causes of preventable death among those who smoke. This can be shown with sound reproducible science. No estimates of epidemiology studies were ever needed other than to cast doubt on the truth and mire those who really seek to protect health down in tar pits of bureaucracy designed to stop them.
When Doll made the link between smoking and cancers, it has to be questioned why he decided to change direction and the fact the scientific community has abandoned the link to petrochemical products and burning of oil in the 50-year span since. The link to smoking already established although not explained research dollars have been predominantly focused on the tobacco link while funding for the more obvious culprit has been scarce. It took 50 years of battling the medical community in fact for the American EPA to finally list Diesel fuel as a carcinogen although science had proven consistently the huge risk in inhaling fuel and burned fuel fumes. Epidemiology was not necessary to prove consistently in Petrie dish testing, the danger was extreme. Since that listing little public concern has been raised in avoiding a scientifically sound provable danger, primarily because the statistically insignificant proof of ETS has been promoted in fear mongering media purchases. Campaigns designed in order to save government the embarrassment of real proof they were deliberately increasing the death toll. Global warming tripe that seeks to reduce CO2 while ignoring NOX and SOX emissions are consistent with the planned ignorance and refusal to deal with real hazards to community. In an age of information, the facts are getting harder to hide under the rugs of irresponsible politicians who proudly chant the phrase “preventable deaths” while conveniently avoiding legislative measures, which could prevent them. Petrochemical industries still carry the big stick in directing government opinions. The same oil companies as participating NGOs at the World health Organization and through Philanthropy contribute to a lot of medical institutions and Charity medical foundations, have in effect bought themselves a free pass, allowing tremendous death and disease to be excused, in profiting from the media promoted ideals. Public perceptions created of announced goodwill donations and feel good awards ceremonies inventing societal heroes. Heroes such as Sir Doll or Heather Crow who received accolades not for service to society rather service to politicians and industries who are grateful for their efforts. Anti smoker advocates worldwide have in effect protected the Cigarette manufacturers and assured growing profits in lowering operating costs, increased value of the product and allowed no responsibility for health risks associated with sales of products with known unsafe ingredients. Anti smokers, consistently state there is no proof one tobacco could be safer than another despite growing restrictions and flue curing methods reducing the dangers of Tobacco. Additional ingredients are added without restriction or question of those claiming to be driven by the protection of others. Obviously, these lobbies have values that are more important in mind. If Hospitality workers were the targets of protections, how would their numbers compare to the amount of people, who smoke and could be protected significantly, with a few minor ingredient restrictions? With all the anti Tobacco research money, flowing for the past 55 years it is amazing no conclusions on the safety of the product or the manufacture of cigarette products have been discovered aside from “it is all unsafe”. The grouping of “all smoking” as opposed to individual products in a wide brush claim is irresponsible and could lead to embarrassment in legal proceedings with no clear description in what is being called tobacco smoke. Source of tobacco smoke is entirely relevant in deriving a risk. Which brands which ingredient mixtures and percentage of if any tobacco included has never been disclosed? The reality of those products; if made safer could in fact reduce many deaths, which of course would reduce the need for smoking bans or governments funding the chemical industry advocates. Attacking the victim while promoting the product as with smoking is an indefensible position.
Perhaps another look at the facts and the players would explain the discrepancies the fact Rockefeller was convicted of unfair business practices dividing standard oil into 4 companies did not limit the ability of those in the industry to continue with domination principles. The control of American medicine by the Rockefellers could add some understanding to the events. Historically what happened in the 20-year frame, which saw such a dramatic, increase in lung cancers, an increase which has not been explained for the following 50 years? The real cause had to be known yet was allowed to continue; smoking was most likely just a convenient scapegoat. The size and influence of the tobacco industry was after all dwarfed in comparison to the oil and auto industries. The Second World War happened in the 20-year interim. An increase of Industrialization and use of oil which has increased consistently since. Smoking neither in the 20 year time frame or the 20 year or 30 year periods before the increases in cancer saw smoking increases equating the increased disease. The Oil companies in fact with the invention and production of cars starting in the early 1900s and increasing slowly at first before the Second World War and enormously since 1931 combined with war machinery produced to fight the war could be the only scientifically sound explanation for the new cancer phenomenon.
If you ask an oncologist most would tell you exposure to gasoline fumes is the predominant cause of brain tumors yet not one of them would put it in writing for fear of being attacked by the oil companies. The known safe level of Benzene is one part per million in air yet in Gasoline one part per hundred is the norm. Gas storage tanks are vented without restriction in residential neighborhoods throughout North America. The self-serve gas bar has worked well for the oil companies in reducing risk to oil company workers and avoiding scrutiny by adjusting the numbers. Now most of the workers sit inside the building away from constant exposure to the fumes.
Good science can always discredit great propaganda. Some realization of the big picture could show a lot of us the solutions to the current fear and hate campaign of the tyrants in anti smoker advocacy.
FXR
No comments:
Post a Comment