A cause for concern arises when we know the facts recently revealed by the anti smoker advocates and research in the news for a number of years, we will all die prematurely if the Government does not take immediate action. I am asking all who read this to write letters to Canadian Federal and Provincial Health ministries to demand double blind studies and environmental assessments be commissioned to investigate the Epidemiological effects of current Diesel fuel, leaded gas and kerosene exhaust effects on the general population. It can be nothing less than gross hypocrisy and reckless disregard, to do less, unless as research would indicate current government agencies are pandering to the needs of market share competitions in nicotine delivery industries as opposed to the needs of the public they represent. Plans to expand public transit and airport capacities require immediate investigation in respect to possibly catastrophic public health issues. With the research recently revealed by Government and health care advocates as to the levels and resulting affects of health in the exposure of outdoor cigarette smoke it becomes quite evident the massively higher danger exists in exposure to fuel exhaust. The target organs affected according to the Nosh guidelines are eyes, Heart, Lungs the brain and central nervous system. The scientific re-provable evidence shows Diesel and kerosene fuels cause lung cancer. Avgas has never had the reductions of lead as we saw with auto fuels and the evidence is clear the dangers of leaded fuel constitute unacceptable risk of human mortality. The known safe level of Benzene is one part per million yet federal regulations allow one part per hundred in auto fuel this is a questionable stance considering the risks involved at self serve gas bars. In perspective observations, the dangerous exposure to the general population exceeds that of primary smoking counts by more than five times and would be approximately equal to the amount of those exposed ever to second hand smoke.
Studies should include commuters who would be exposed to this cumulative toxin 10 or more times per week exceeding 15 minutes of exposure described as waiting on bus and train platforms. Those employed directly or working more than 40 hours per week in immediate vicinity to the platforms for incidence of Cancer and long term respiratory ailments. The majority 90% of the Ontario population lives within 120 KM of the American boarder and by coincidence the routes of Go Train and busses are concentrated within this tract. The major incidence of Lung Cancer would also be concentrated in a population who lives and works in this area. The unsafe levels of lifetime ingestion of Diesel fuel far exceed the recommendations to protect public health. With Avgas lead dangers the Toronto Island airport and close proximity to the children’s Centreville theme park, Exhibition Park and Ontario place all frequented by large groups of children daily, should be a matter of urgent concern. The Buttonville airport and it’s proximity to high density upper income housing the financial liability exposures are a matter of equal concern.
Government must minimize further future risk through immediate action, particularly with the onus on expenditures to expand these transportation methods. Current plans will lead to predictable death and increased incidence of lung Cancers and respiratory ailments, which could exceed the preventable deaths now suspiciously attributed primarily to cigarette smoking. It is imperative; the public sector purchase of diesel-powered vehicles should cease immediately until the long-term effects of the exposure to millions of unsuspecting commuters are more clearly understood. The City of Toronto trucking garbage to the States is a major concern the result of hundreds of Diesel vehicles operating seven days a week is an obvious potential harm. Estimates show these vehicles alone are producing 5000 full grams of Dioxins annually; this is much more than the incinerator they replaced. Smog days are on the rise despite the government declaration of actions to reduce emissions have been successful. Current expansion of Aircraft use should also be examined the dangers of Kerosene are well known and may be seen as toxic as those in Diesel Fuel exhaust. The monitoring of personal vehicle emissions is not being taken seriously when dealing with a much deadlier hazard. The Bay Street bus terminal in Toronto at any given time has a minimum of six busses sitting idling continuously twenty four hours a day seven days a week despite a city bylaw which specifically prohibits a vehicle idling for more than 3 minutes. Drivers in their training are taught to leave the vehicles running due to a myth, the practice will extend engine life. Modern vehicles do not have such requirements and should be shut down at all times when not in use.
Diesel Exhaust is a class 1 carcinogen and a known workplace safety hazard. The Government has known this since 1960 yet failed to properly notify and protect the general public from the potential hazard. Successive Governments knowingly and willingly participated in profiting through sales of transportation tickets and taxation knowingly profited from the exposure of its customers and the general public to this reckless and deadly health risk. The Propaganda campaign currently being employed against cigarette smoke is a planned deception aimed at deflecting blame away from a toxin which is known to cause lung cancer. This is borne out in real science not theoretic studies. The exposure and RR values if calculated will prove irrefutably the fact; exposure to Diesel fuel exhaust would far surpass dangers now expressed as the only other possible option or explanation for the high incidence of Lung Cancer. The drastic reduction of smoking in North America in relation to the increased incidence of new Cancers have never been explained The explanation can be seen clearly in the increased use of Diesel powered vehicles and the coincidental increases in new Lung cancer patients.
For these reasons I am asking everyone to write legislators and Health ministries and have this investigated as their is an unwillingness to proceed by Cancer foundations and public Health groups the Government has a duty to protect the population and finance these studies.
It may well be proven with physical science and with no estimates of epidemiology or consensus groups required.
"A Public transit passenger ticket is likely the only product which used as directed Kills its users"
Monday, March 06, 2006
Is it time we saw a more logical perspective
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
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
The press
A number of misconceptions circulating the “Me too” journalism circuit lately involve matters, which simply cry for a glimmer of honesty and understanding. Realizing of course the humor in a gang of journalists who decries it unthinkable a high school student can graduate without learning how to read. The same gang gives light to another more disturbing thought; a graduate of a university (with an association to admittedly lower scholastic field) yet can be graduated as a Journalist, with absolutely no mathematic or comprehension abilities whatsoever, This should raise a few eyebrows nonetheless making the proof of witch hunt logic, truly news worthy. If integrity only existed within the industry such a theory could be adequately researched and reported. Ah but when the pendulum swings who will laugh best? As we promote separation and hatred to groups among our community how expensive a prospect trying to keep windows replaced at news offices around the globe if the truth where to come out. Getting even with the Tobacco industry amounts in reality to punishing the victims for if health were the issue the product would be the target not the smoker. Taxes Tobacco settlements and industry markup to offset lost business are simply passed on to the consumer. Reductions in cost of operations go directly to higher profit margins. A win-win for stakeholders and more financial cost to the consumer.
The 47,000 deaths we seek to cure are in fact by 150 to one ratio smoker’s deaths in reality. How does protecting non-smokers even come into play if heath protection were really the plan? Calling smokers demeaning names and accusing them of killing babies hardly sets the table for reductions in harm. Of coarse responsible and ethical journalism would never have allowed this to happen.
Hundreds of millions in media expenditures seems to have removed all potential ethical barriers. A little earned media and party branding as a thank you gesture seems quite appropriate in kind. Believe me, I quite understand, just business.
From The champion of second hand smoke intelligence globally; the much revered Repace theories at the heart of anti smoker advocacy and supreme intelligence beyond question. Cough Cough {Non smokers cough?} Our own intelligence base at Health Canada, where a man described as head scientist has no training to match his job description.
The fact he is actually a political science graduate could shed a great deal of light on the subject.
Note it may be necessary to verify these figures my suggestion would be to hire a second year high school student who should be well capable of verifying what is presented. Those employed in the media industry are understandably disadvantaged in scientific analysis.
In 1960 54% of the population smoked.
Due to the fact the vast majority of the smokers were men combined with the fact smoking was unrestricted and commonly smoking was everywhere inside hospitals grocery stores movie theatres etc. due to the facts it would be difficult if not impossible to find a group who had not been exposed to second hand smoke this would by the research criteria comparing a group to an unaffected group make the majority of research done in this fashion invalid in any conclusions. Despite the facts the majority of these flawed studies still failed to find a statistically significant proof ETS causes any disease let alone cancers.
Repace has the rare ability to start at an end point and work backwards toward the point most research starts as evident in virtually all of his presentations. His sources of finances are in fact mysteriously absent from most of the quotes referring to his work.
From Repace numbers1;
-The known safe level of PPAH toxins in a smoking or non-smoking environment is 16.3 Pico grams (trillionths of a gram) per cubic meter of oxygen.
-The measured level of PPAH toxins in a non-smoking environment is by measurement 4 Nana grams (Billionths of a gram) only 250 times above the known Repace safe level.
-One cigarette by the side of the package indicates an ability to produce 100 milligrams total emissions
-25 in a pack produces 2500 milligrams half would be inhaled on average amounting to 1250 milligrams (Thousandths of a gram) per day 1,250,000,000 Nanograms
-Inhalations in a smoking environment of ½ litter inhalations (2000per Meter cubed), 4800inhalations per 8 hour day of 163 nana grams per cubic meter gives the following; 2.4 x 163 = 391.2 nana grams total daily inhalation.
-Non-smoking environment 2.4 x 4 = 9.6 nana grams
-Smoker 1250,000,000 nana grams per package, non-smoker 391.2 nanograms, no smoke 9.6-nana grams total daily inhalations
Now from Sir Richard Doll new research2, which proves in over 50 years of Doctors, smoking habits extending over the last hundred years. Conclusions revealed 12 years of smoking after cessation at 30 years of age results in no detrimental effects above the non-smoking population. Proof absolutely of dose response relationships existing in ETS Leaving risk assessment a job for the ministry of the environment, as is the case with monitoring all other toxic substances.
The only factor left to understand is the safe dose, which is also revealed in the Doll research. A known safe level can be calculated as follows; 15,000,000,000 Nana grams /32850 days over a 90 year smoking lifespan = a daily dose of 456,621 Nana grams or 457 micrograms PPAH more than 1000 times higher than what exists in a smoking environment according to Repace and a number of studies he quotes as valid. Suggesting no harm existed to start with in ETS prior to all restrictions in primary smoking.
This would amount to 15,000,000,000 Nana grams in dosages distributed over only 12 years. It would take a non smoker (250 day/years x 45 years) per working lifetime to reach a level of 4,401,000 Nana grams It would take an additional 3803 lifetimes to reach a level Doll considered would have no consequence. Further proof of dose response relationships as valid are verified in a Sept 28 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association JAMA reported study3 and associated studies which showed by significant results cutting the level of intake by half reduced the Cancer risk by half among daily smokers who administer a daily dose thousands of times higher than is possible in a smoking environment.
Can a level increase of 4 to 163 nanograms really constitute a deadly hazard considering the levels above?
A Danger of increased risk according to Repace 10,000 times the known safe level at 1 death per million per working lifetime, and at the same time responsible by his calculations for 255 deaths per million in the States alone 89,250 ETS casualties yet not a single death certificate to verify the massive losses. In fact triple the exaggerated levels which were vacated as junk science by a US supreme court.
Lobby group ganging up on discussions and parroting unsubstantiated facts were revealed in a Scottish court decision demanding factual proof in claims Judge Smith berated the attempt to undermine the authority of the courts with an absolute dismissal.
No safe level and hurricane force winds only become believable when you consider a risk in the almost immeasurable level at 16.3 Pico grams 250 times below the level where no smoke exists. Substantially a vacuum within the room. Is the only known safe level? More suspicious when every ingredient is known in the environment ministry to be safe in most cases in concentrations millions of times higher than Repace logic dictates? No safe level exists as stated, is offset of course by no unsafe level exists either It goes without saying perceived dangers to the public would be greatly reduced from levels of employees who spend much longer periods of time exposed to ETS the norms experienced in the public would be a fraction of exposures overall. Dioxin Body fat accumulations reduce over time after cessation of exposures.
Now it comes down to credibility in who is more believable a paid industry advocate or a lifetime scholar Knighted for his ability and dedication. Even a brain dead Hack should be able to figure that one out. Hey but the not letting the facts get in the way of a great story thing gets thin after you hear the story 3 thousand times. In reality facts to potential for a credible story here sums up the picture of a mosquito the second he hits the windscreen of a Mack truck at highway speeds. Don’t worry the news isn’t all bad, I am certain the public will eventually forgive the efforts to prop up a lying sack PMO. We all understand the need to keep the sales up. I have to wonder though how much future exists in the media as a career. It is quite evident the saleable product is relational to credibility. That seems to indicate the industry’s days are indeed numbered. Enjoy it while it lasts and give those smokers another kick. Fat folks will be the next profit streams you should have a ball with that topic. Is Journalism perhaps one of those lowly professions mentioned by the immigration minister; Canadians are unwilling or unable to do? Makes you wonder.
As Hitler grew weary of the expense and potential opposition threat possible in the press. It seemed a necessary step in nationalizing the press as unavoidable. The WHO will soon realize they cannot avoid that step for much longer. I am certain the opposition parties see the step as crucial to their survival as well if they do rise to power, despite the best efforts of the media groups. Strong regulation will be the minimum they will be able to accept after the efforts of the last 12 years fighting for the simple right to be seen as a credible alternative in a democratic country in which the media give more respect to the separatists.
Best Regards; LMAO
References
[1]http://www.acosh.org/art/critical_evaluation.pdf
[2]http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/short/bmj.38142.554479.AEv1
[3]http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/12/1505
Suggested reading
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/2/148
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/2076DE.htm http://www.swedish.org/16653.cfm
http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2809
Do no harm?http://www.geocities.com/smokersunited/Abuse1.htm
http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/54/3/162
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Earth_Charter_Ark.htm
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html
The current lead scientist at health Canada BIO
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/branch-dirgen/ocvc-bcgdwc/forest_e.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/reb-cer/rep-rap/2004_e.html
Guiding principles of Consensus Domination. Popularly coined Scientific Opinion
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artproctor.pdf
http://www.who.int/hia/en/
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=ikOc98-li5YC
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/index_e.html#12
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/20-3/b_e.html
Read Mommy Kills pdf
The 47,000 deaths we seek to cure are in fact by 150 to one ratio smoker’s deaths in reality. How does protecting non-smokers even come into play if heath protection were really the plan? Calling smokers demeaning names and accusing them of killing babies hardly sets the table for reductions in harm. Of coarse responsible and ethical journalism would never have allowed this to happen.
Hundreds of millions in media expenditures seems to have removed all potential ethical barriers. A little earned media and party branding as a thank you gesture seems quite appropriate in kind. Believe me, I quite understand, just business.
From The champion of second hand smoke intelligence globally; the much revered Repace theories at the heart of anti smoker advocacy and supreme intelligence beyond question. Cough Cough {Non smokers cough?} Our own intelligence base at Health Canada, where a man described as head scientist has no training to match his job description.
The fact he is actually a political science graduate could shed a great deal of light on the subject.
Note it may be necessary to verify these figures my suggestion would be to hire a second year high school student who should be well capable of verifying what is presented. Those employed in the media industry are understandably disadvantaged in scientific analysis.
In 1960 54% of the population smoked.
Due to the fact the vast majority of the smokers were men combined with the fact smoking was unrestricted and commonly smoking was everywhere inside hospitals grocery stores movie theatres etc. due to the facts it would be difficult if not impossible to find a group who had not been exposed to second hand smoke this would by the research criteria comparing a group to an unaffected group make the majority of research done in this fashion invalid in any conclusions. Despite the facts the majority of these flawed studies still failed to find a statistically significant proof ETS causes any disease let alone cancers.
Repace has the rare ability to start at an end point and work backwards toward the point most research starts as evident in virtually all of his presentations. His sources of finances are in fact mysteriously absent from most of the quotes referring to his work.
From Repace numbers1;
-The known safe level of PPAH toxins in a smoking or non-smoking environment is 16.3 Pico grams (trillionths of a gram) per cubic meter of oxygen.
-The measured level of PPAH toxins in a non-smoking environment is by measurement 4 Nana grams (Billionths of a gram) only 250 times above the known Repace safe level.
-One cigarette by the side of the package indicates an ability to produce 100 milligrams total emissions
-25 in a pack produces 2500 milligrams half would be inhaled on average amounting to 1250 milligrams (Thousandths of a gram) per day 1,250,000,000 Nanograms
-Inhalations in a smoking environment of ½ litter inhalations (2000per Meter cubed), 4800inhalations per 8 hour day of 163 nana grams per cubic meter gives the following; 2.4 x 163 = 391.2 nana grams total daily inhalation.
-Non-smoking environment 2.4 x 4 = 9.6 nana grams
-Smoker 1250,000,000 nana grams per package, non-smoker 391.2 nanograms, no smoke 9.6-nana grams total daily inhalations
Now from Sir Richard Doll new research2, which proves in over 50 years of Doctors, smoking habits extending over the last hundred years. Conclusions revealed 12 years of smoking after cessation at 30 years of age results in no detrimental effects above the non-smoking population. Proof absolutely of dose response relationships existing in ETS Leaving risk assessment a job for the ministry of the environment, as is the case with monitoring all other toxic substances.
The only factor left to understand is the safe dose, which is also revealed in the Doll research. A known safe level can be calculated as follows; 15,000,000,000 Nana grams /32850 days over a 90 year smoking lifespan = a daily dose of 456,621 Nana grams or 457 micrograms PPAH more than 1000 times higher than what exists in a smoking environment according to Repace and a number of studies he quotes as valid. Suggesting no harm existed to start with in ETS prior to all restrictions in primary smoking.
This would amount to 15,000,000,000 Nana grams in dosages distributed over only 12 years. It would take a non smoker (250 day/years x 45 years) per working lifetime to reach a level of 4,401,000 Nana grams It would take an additional 3803 lifetimes to reach a level Doll considered would have no consequence. Further proof of dose response relationships as valid are verified in a Sept 28 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association JAMA reported study3 and associated studies which showed by significant results cutting the level of intake by half reduced the Cancer risk by half among daily smokers who administer a daily dose thousands of times higher than is possible in a smoking environment.
Can a level increase of 4 to 163 nanograms really constitute a deadly hazard considering the levels above?
A Danger of increased risk according to Repace 10,000 times the known safe level at 1 death per million per working lifetime, and at the same time responsible by his calculations for 255 deaths per million in the States alone 89,250 ETS casualties yet not a single death certificate to verify the massive losses. In fact triple the exaggerated levels which were vacated as junk science by a US supreme court.
Lobby group ganging up on discussions and parroting unsubstantiated facts were revealed in a Scottish court decision demanding factual proof in claims Judge Smith berated the attempt to undermine the authority of the courts with an absolute dismissal.
No safe level and hurricane force winds only become believable when you consider a risk in the almost immeasurable level at 16.3 Pico grams 250 times below the level where no smoke exists. Substantially a vacuum within the room. Is the only known safe level? More suspicious when every ingredient is known in the environment ministry to be safe in most cases in concentrations millions of times higher than Repace logic dictates? No safe level exists as stated, is offset of course by no unsafe level exists either It goes without saying perceived dangers to the public would be greatly reduced from levels of employees who spend much longer periods of time exposed to ETS the norms experienced in the public would be a fraction of exposures overall. Dioxin Body fat accumulations reduce over time after cessation of exposures.
Now it comes down to credibility in who is more believable a paid industry advocate or a lifetime scholar Knighted for his ability and dedication. Even a brain dead Hack should be able to figure that one out. Hey but the not letting the facts get in the way of a great story thing gets thin after you hear the story 3 thousand times. In reality facts to potential for a credible story here sums up the picture of a mosquito the second he hits the windscreen of a Mack truck at highway speeds. Don’t worry the news isn’t all bad, I am certain the public will eventually forgive the efforts to prop up a lying sack PMO. We all understand the need to keep the sales up. I have to wonder though how much future exists in the media as a career. It is quite evident the saleable product is relational to credibility. That seems to indicate the industry’s days are indeed numbered. Enjoy it while it lasts and give those smokers another kick. Fat folks will be the next profit streams you should have a ball with that topic. Is Journalism perhaps one of those lowly professions mentioned by the immigration minister; Canadians are unwilling or unable to do? Makes you wonder.
As Hitler grew weary of the expense and potential opposition threat possible in the press. It seemed a necessary step in nationalizing the press as unavoidable. The WHO will soon realize they cannot avoid that step for much longer. I am certain the opposition parties see the step as crucial to their survival as well if they do rise to power, despite the best efforts of the media groups. Strong regulation will be the minimum they will be able to accept after the efforts of the last 12 years fighting for the simple right to be seen as a credible alternative in a democratic country in which the media give more respect to the separatists.
Best Regards; LMAO
References
[1]http://www.acosh.org/art/critical_evaluation.pdf
[2]http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/short/bmj.38142.554479.AEv1
[3]http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/12/1505
Suggested reading
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/2/148
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/2076DE.htm http://www.swedish.org/16653.cfm
http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2809
Do no harm?http://www.geocities.com/smokersunited/Abuse1.htm
http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/54/3/162
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Earth_Charter_Ark.htm
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html
The current lead scientist at health Canada BIO
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/branch-dirgen/ocvc-bcgdwc/forest_e.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/reb-cer/rep-rap/2004_e.html
Guiding principles of Consensus Domination. Popularly coined Scientific Opinion
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artproctor.pdf
http://www.who.int/hia/en/
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=ikOc98-li5YC
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/index_e.html#12
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/20-3/b_e.html
Read Mommy Kills pdf
In response to the letter From the Ontario Health Department
Seeking Support of new draconian smoking bans in Ontario.
I have read your request and I appreciate you have allowed my voice to finally be heard .The request however is seen to be disingenuous in its stated intent. The smoking Ban as described by George Smitherman is not in keeping with Canadian values of inclusion. It is known to be dangerous to public health and is entirely suspicious in origin and real intent. The Public consultations in my view were an illegal expenditure of public funds to purchase politics and promote industry products of competing nicotine delivery systems. A shameful abuse of power.
Your contention The Health ministry has the ability or the mandate to deal with a broad range of issues in fact all issues leaves me aghast. How many issues do not properly belong to the Health ministry to the detriment of taxpayers funding other duplicated departments? A recent debate recorded in Hansart discussions included a declaration the Health ministry now believes road building to be a Health issue. The funding of such areas in a broad perspective of health issues as opposed to the public perception of simply funding of medical infrastructure indeed can be seen as embarking down an evil road known all too well by every student of political science. A road previously traveled by those known in infamy as Mussolini and Hitler. The centrist view adapted by the Liberals of late would increase this suspicion. The policy adoption of the Right and the Left in a centrist positioning can only be explained as intent to adapt the virtues of the third way.
The Federal Government and Health Canada are known to be extensively interfering with Provincial issues. The broadening of scope to include the work of other departments’ leaves us wondering what these other departments are to do, and what reason we have for maintaining them. Smoking is an environmental issue best dealt with in science and discovery not in propaganda campaigns based in consensus realities as opposed to scientific facts. The Health Canada website in an explanation of Social engineering tells a belief government has a right to dictate what we think as opposed to listening to what we do think, a dictators view to rights of decision. Use of ad agency creations such as political correctness can therefore be seen as a whip to keep us silent while the government dictates moral opinion through description of the extremes and outright deceit.
The Federal Liberals contend the Conservatives want an American Healthcare system the Conservatives counter the Liberals want to dominate and indeed dictate provincial matters. These are discussions of extremes and do not deal with anything substantial in direction. The obligation of the Provincial government should be to protect our provincial right to direct our own healthcare spending. The Federal Government needs to define in the Canada healthcare act a clear definition of Healthcare as the funding of medical infrastructure and eliminate the waste through duplication of other ministerial responsibilities. In an aging and growing population can their be any doubt as to why lineups are growing when money designated for healthcare can be directed in huge amounts to all other areas of concern? If you contend an adoption of the third way will serve the public perhaps that, is where public debate should be headed and lets see where that goes.The public consultations as they were called indeed allowed no true representation of the public as it's name seemed to indicate. Rather the voices of an organized lobby working in concert and named by Mr. Smitherman in the announcement of his bill. They were allowed to dominate every discussion on the matter. The Liberal Government allowed the list to include only the voices they wanted to hear with few exceptions. Silenced were the voices of affected industries who came with real research and this included the Government's own research all without consideration quickly brushed aside in public announcements of bias. How would we see the participating stakeholders with similar restrictions applied? Every one to a name will see gains from the ban. Whether financial or political all will have something to gain. Yet, those voices were allowed to reign supreme regardless of the enormous damage known to be inevitable with the passing of this legislation. The ministry of the environment was curiously absent in the assessment of the harm of second hand smoke. Or in the simplified dismissal of DSRs as a legitimate alternative. (The solution supported by the vast majority of the population smokers or non.) If they had been asked an opinion of a suspected harm they have been monitoring and regulating for years. What would be the result in assessing the fears allowed to be inspired and given to the public in Ad agency terms? What will be the effect of driving women out into unsheltered parking lots were untold harms of insect bites weather conditions and attacks by predators in robbery and sexual attacks. What solutions to these problems have ever been discussed and where do I find the conclusions of trading one harm determined by consensus devoid of scientific fact, for another larger one know to be the reason we have jails courts and police officers. Is the ban respective of crime reduction efforts or was downside logic even considered?I further object to children being taught the hate being not only approved but also endorsed in recent actions of the Ministry of health. A website named stupid the focal point of government opinion? Reinforcing hatred against those who choose to use a legal product. Killers of Babies, child abuse, smelling like dog fescues? Words of a government I want no part of. Further abuse in published threats by a Health ministry Quit or be punished? Punishment is for the courts otherwise the threats need to be seen as a criminal act by a government official who seeks to punish not a crime but a personal choice. The great harm in science by consensus as opposed to the old fashion type by discovery and laws of real science is the immeasurable damage done to the credibility of rules and integrity, which allowed society to evolve into a just and caring place known as democracy. Liberal governance is now evolved into a force of destruction. Laid to waste in its path are values of ethics and morals, which have always served us well. Even the very cultural traditions which have made this place unique and the envy of the world will now be deemed as repugnant under the political wheels of governance so destructive it seeks the aid of even Hitler himself in it's promotions. You have asked me to participate in your campaign I respectfully decline, as I can no longer involve myself in a plan of imposition to line the pockets of others.. The letter in it's true intent is another farce to give those who inspired this ban an additional opportunity to further impose upon my rights and furthering of their goals.The effect of lobby groups is being seen as a huge industry based in the ability to control weak governments and impose the values of self serving industries to promote products such as the incredibly high priced cessation products being seen and openly advertised by your government. It is well known the lobby groups claims of contents of Smoke include man made chemicals which do not exist in a regulated product sold here for years prior to the government allowing the unrestricted imports of much more dangerous tobacco from sources with ecological disasters for growing conditions. If the agenda is public safety why has your government made no effort to examine these claims? Why is the public not aware of alternate products attacked vehemently at the mere mention by your advisors? Snu smokeless products were adapted by 80% of smokers in Sweden because of a 90% reduced health risk in use of smokeless tobacco however the price is also 90% reduced. Would cost and benefit be the real motivation behind public heath advocacy as easily proven in this but one example? If you are seeking to improve public health real honest study irrespective of those who will gain from the implementation of the bill needs to be a priority and not furthering the goals of the fear mongering crowd with a financial reward for actions the real motivation of anti smoking advocacy regardless of harm.The rising violence seen on the streets in Toronto can be seen clearly a result impositions and poverty. As the government grows bureaucracy so grows poverty and hate on our streets. Inclusive values would not have this effect the summary dismissals of your government is proof of a failure by policies to protect us resulting in immeasurable harm. The misguided folly of pursuing 47,000 preventable deaths with only 10% of that amount actually statistically linked smoking and of those ¾ occurring after 70 is proof enough of lack of wisdom in assessing harms and a total lack of credibility of a government supporting the values of Dither.It is Irrefutable the Federal Government is imposing it’s will as agreed to in the international smoking treaty with The World Health Organization your actions are not as noble as you would portray. It seems incredible for a provincial legislature to not only instill the wishes of the Federal known to be corrupted Liberal party but allow them to stay clear of the blame. The Federal voice is absent in the advocacy as they fear repercussions leaving it to the co-operating Provincial ministries to tell the tales so easily discredited being given to the public as news daily. Paid for by our apparently naïve provincial representatives who will one day share the blame and ridicule. The historic view of prohibitionists is well known. The wealth and power of organized crime in North America would not have been possible without it. Sale of black market cigarettes rises with every increase of tax one fact the lobbies fail to recognize in the advocacy of greed.Can we all see it prudent to be chased from a Diesel powered bus for fear of a measured value of 160 nana grams of 5000 mixed ingredients of varying levels of largely unknown harm in a smoke filled bar as opposed to 4 -10 milligrams per cubic meter of chemicals thousands of times as harmful? Think about that next time you see a mother unaware of the harm she instills on her child when pushing a carriage into a bus terminal or a publicly promoted subway train. The measure of harm and the failure to deal with it is evidence enough to determine the real motives behind anti smoker advocacy as purely monetary and political promotion. Elimination of the public voice is further proof this is not a kind and gentle protection but a fraud and an imposition. Regardless of what polls and ad agencies will admit common sense and word of mouth are far more effective in creating lasting public perceptions than anything the ad agencies have ever produced to date. In the way of a positive note, history shows a steady decline to eventual elimination of every government who has ever attempted to legislate morality. When those impositions are for fun and profit the decline is much swifter. After the ban is fully implemented, an election will follow. I and many others have pledged the word Nazi will be heard at every opportunity in connection with the word Lieberal.
Friends will not let friends vote Lieberal.FXR
Parallels cannot be ignored
Word for word the Lieberal red book
“Historians and epidemiologists have only recently begun to explore the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. Germany had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,encompassing bans on smoking in public spaces, bans on advertising,restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and the world's most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The anti-tobacco campaign must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily purity, which also motivated many other public health efforts of the era.”
“The guiding light behind Thuringia's antismoking campaign and the man who drafted the grant application for Astel's anti-tobacco institute, was executed on 1 October 1946 for crimes against humanity. It is hardly surprising that much of the wind was taken out of the sails of Germany's anti-tobacco movement.”
“Perhaps the ultimate overlooked point of this work is the suggestion that Adolph Hitler with his anti-tobacco, anti-religion, pro-animal rights, pro-government intrusion would find success as a modern day liberal." --Steve Fantina
Doctors don’t generally make great leaders
Basis for smoking bans
The dominance principle
Purchasing media credibility
Reality bites when you are found to be wrong
The fat campaign fraud was discovered long before Ontario Lieberals decided to start one of their own.
Possible suspects
The voice of reason a view beyond scary stories
Lots if evidence
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=937
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=913
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2827
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2731
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2732
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2758
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2769
I have read your request and I appreciate you have allowed my voice to finally be heard .The request however is seen to be disingenuous in its stated intent. The smoking Ban as described by George Smitherman is not in keeping with Canadian values of inclusion. It is known to be dangerous to public health and is entirely suspicious in origin and real intent. The Public consultations in my view were an illegal expenditure of public funds to purchase politics and promote industry products of competing nicotine delivery systems. A shameful abuse of power.
Your contention The Health ministry has the ability or the mandate to deal with a broad range of issues in fact all issues leaves me aghast. How many issues do not properly belong to the Health ministry to the detriment of taxpayers funding other duplicated departments? A recent debate recorded in Hansart discussions included a declaration the Health ministry now believes road building to be a Health issue. The funding of such areas in a broad perspective of health issues as opposed to the public perception of simply funding of medical infrastructure indeed can be seen as embarking down an evil road known all too well by every student of political science. A road previously traveled by those known in infamy as Mussolini and Hitler. The centrist view adapted by the Liberals of late would increase this suspicion. The policy adoption of the Right and the Left in a centrist positioning can only be explained as intent to adapt the virtues of the third way.
The Federal Government and Health Canada are known to be extensively interfering with Provincial issues. The broadening of scope to include the work of other departments’ leaves us wondering what these other departments are to do, and what reason we have for maintaining them. Smoking is an environmental issue best dealt with in science and discovery not in propaganda campaigns based in consensus realities as opposed to scientific facts. The Health Canada website in an explanation of Social engineering tells a belief government has a right to dictate what we think as opposed to listening to what we do think, a dictators view to rights of decision. Use of ad agency creations such as political correctness can therefore be seen as a whip to keep us silent while the government dictates moral opinion through description of the extremes and outright deceit.
The Federal Liberals contend the Conservatives want an American Healthcare system the Conservatives counter the Liberals want to dominate and indeed dictate provincial matters. These are discussions of extremes and do not deal with anything substantial in direction. The obligation of the Provincial government should be to protect our provincial right to direct our own healthcare spending. The Federal Government needs to define in the Canada healthcare act a clear definition of Healthcare as the funding of medical infrastructure and eliminate the waste through duplication of other ministerial responsibilities. In an aging and growing population can their be any doubt as to why lineups are growing when money designated for healthcare can be directed in huge amounts to all other areas of concern? If you contend an adoption of the third way will serve the public perhaps that, is where public debate should be headed and lets see where that goes.The public consultations as they were called indeed allowed no true representation of the public as it's name seemed to indicate. Rather the voices of an organized lobby working in concert and named by Mr. Smitherman in the announcement of his bill. They were allowed to dominate every discussion on the matter. The Liberal Government allowed the list to include only the voices they wanted to hear with few exceptions. Silenced were the voices of affected industries who came with real research and this included the Government's own research all without consideration quickly brushed aside in public announcements of bias. How would we see the participating stakeholders with similar restrictions applied? Every one to a name will see gains from the ban. Whether financial or political all will have something to gain. Yet, those voices were allowed to reign supreme regardless of the enormous damage known to be inevitable with the passing of this legislation. The ministry of the environment was curiously absent in the assessment of the harm of second hand smoke. Or in the simplified dismissal of DSRs as a legitimate alternative. (The solution supported by the vast majority of the population smokers or non.) If they had been asked an opinion of a suspected harm they have been monitoring and regulating for years. What would be the result in assessing the fears allowed to be inspired and given to the public in Ad agency terms? What will be the effect of driving women out into unsheltered parking lots were untold harms of insect bites weather conditions and attacks by predators in robbery and sexual attacks. What solutions to these problems have ever been discussed and where do I find the conclusions of trading one harm determined by consensus devoid of scientific fact, for another larger one know to be the reason we have jails courts and police officers. Is the ban respective of crime reduction efforts or was downside logic even considered?I further object to children being taught the hate being not only approved but also endorsed in recent actions of the Ministry of health. A website named stupid the focal point of government opinion? Reinforcing hatred against those who choose to use a legal product. Killers of Babies, child abuse, smelling like dog fescues? Words of a government I want no part of. Further abuse in published threats by a Health ministry Quit or be punished? Punishment is for the courts otherwise the threats need to be seen as a criminal act by a government official who seeks to punish not a crime but a personal choice. The great harm in science by consensus as opposed to the old fashion type by discovery and laws of real science is the immeasurable damage done to the credibility of rules and integrity, which allowed society to evolve into a just and caring place known as democracy. Liberal governance is now evolved into a force of destruction. Laid to waste in its path are values of ethics and morals, which have always served us well. Even the very cultural traditions which have made this place unique and the envy of the world will now be deemed as repugnant under the political wheels of governance so destructive it seeks the aid of even Hitler himself in it's promotions. You have asked me to participate in your campaign I respectfully decline, as I can no longer involve myself in a plan of imposition to line the pockets of others.. The letter in it's true intent is another farce to give those who inspired this ban an additional opportunity to further impose upon my rights and furthering of their goals.The effect of lobby groups is being seen as a huge industry based in the ability to control weak governments and impose the values of self serving industries to promote products such as the incredibly high priced cessation products being seen and openly advertised by your government. It is well known the lobby groups claims of contents of Smoke include man made chemicals which do not exist in a regulated product sold here for years prior to the government allowing the unrestricted imports of much more dangerous tobacco from sources with ecological disasters for growing conditions. If the agenda is public safety why has your government made no effort to examine these claims? Why is the public not aware of alternate products attacked vehemently at the mere mention by your advisors? Snu smokeless products were adapted by 80% of smokers in Sweden because of a 90% reduced health risk in use of smokeless tobacco however the price is also 90% reduced. Would cost and benefit be the real motivation behind public heath advocacy as easily proven in this but one example? If you are seeking to improve public health real honest study irrespective of those who will gain from the implementation of the bill needs to be a priority and not furthering the goals of the fear mongering crowd with a financial reward for actions the real motivation of anti smoking advocacy regardless of harm.The rising violence seen on the streets in Toronto can be seen clearly a result impositions and poverty. As the government grows bureaucracy so grows poverty and hate on our streets. Inclusive values would not have this effect the summary dismissals of your government is proof of a failure by policies to protect us resulting in immeasurable harm. The misguided folly of pursuing 47,000 preventable deaths with only 10% of that amount actually statistically linked smoking and of those ¾ occurring after 70 is proof enough of lack of wisdom in assessing harms and a total lack of credibility of a government supporting the values of Dither.It is Irrefutable the Federal Government is imposing it’s will as agreed to in the international smoking treaty with The World Health Organization your actions are not as noble as you would portray. It seems incredible for a provincial legislature to not only instill the wishes of the Federal known to be corrupted Liberal party but allow them to stay clear of the blame. The Federal voice is absent in the advocacy as they fear repercussions leaving it to the co-operating Provincial ministries to tell the tales so easily discredited being given to the public as news daily. Paid for by our apparently naïve provincial representatives who will one day share the blame and ridicule. The historic view of prohibitionists is well known. The wealth and power of organized crime in North America would not have been possible without it. Sale of black market cigarettes rises with every increase of tax one fact the lobbies fail to recognize in the advocacy of greed.Can we all see it prudent to be chased from a Diesel powered bus for fear of a measured value of 160 nana grams of 5000 mixed ingredients of varying levels of largely unknown harm in a smoke filled bar as opposed to 4 -10 milligrams per cubic meter of chemicals thousands of times as harmful? Think about that next time you see a mother unaware of the harm she instills on her child when pushing a carriage into a bus terminal or a publicly promoted subway train. The measure of harm and the failure to deal with it is evidence enough to determine the real motives behind anti smoker advocacy as purely monetary and political promotion. Elimination of the public voice is further proof this is not a kind and gentle protection but a fraud and an imposition. Regardless of what polls and ad agencies will admit common sense and word of mouth are far more effective in creating lasting public perceptions than anything the ad agencies have ever produced to date. In the way of a positive note, history shows a steady decline to eventual elimination of every government who has ever attempted to legislate morality. When those impositions are for fun and profit the decline is much swifter. After the ban is fully implemented, an election will follow. I and many others have pledged the word Nazi will be heard at every opportunity in connection with the word Lieberal.
Friends will not let friends vote Lieberal.FXR
Parallels cannot be ignored
Word for word the Lieberal red book
“Historians and epidemiologists have only recently begun to explore the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. Germany had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,encompassing bans on smoking in public spaces, bans on advertising,restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and the world's most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The anti-tobacco campaign must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily purity, which also motivated many other public health efforts of the era.”
“The guiding light behind Thuringia's antismoking campaign and the man who drafted the grant application for Astel's anti-tobacco institute, was executed on 1 October 1946 for crimes against humanity. It is hardly surprising that much of the wind was taken out of the sails of Germany's anti-tobacco movement.”
“Perhaps the ultimate overlooked point of this work is the suggestion that Adolph Hitler with his anti-tobacco, anti-religion, pro-animal rights, pro-government intrusion would find success as a modern day liberal." --Steve Fantina
Doctors don’t generally make great leaders
Basis for smoking bans
The dominance principle
Purchasing media credibility
Reality bites when you are found to be wrong
The fat campaign fraud was discovered long before Ontario Lieberals decided to start one of their own.
Possible suspects
The voice of reason a view beyond scary stories
Lots if evidence
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=937
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=913
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2827
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2731
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2732
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2758
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2769
If smoking death is preventable,
Why is no one interested in preventing it?
There can be little doubt with ample evidence to establish this as fact:
Health protection movements and propaganda campaigns protect products of the industries that finance them, to the detriment of the victims who are now unfairly forced to shoulder the blame.
The World Health Organization in league with NGO partners in industry and the stakeholders it advises are responsible directly for unnecessary and substantial increases in mortality and human suffrage especially among smokers.
The HIA health intervention process abdicated by the WHO is in fact a domination strategy similar to strategies, which convicted the Rockefellers and Bill Gates more recently for unfairly dominating industries. Laws of Informed consent being ignored allowed the last large Fascist regime to kill millions. This regime has the potential to dwarf the last by creating hate and fear for nothing other than huge financial gains of a growing industry power base. A power base currently shedding the few remaining restrictions of any state authority. How many have and will die before common sense and sensibility is once more brought to the forefront in science and discovery. Consensus views directing our decisions are only as valid as those who are allowed to speak. Democracy is strengthened by the debate; if opponents are silenced, we no longer have democracy but something else much less desirable. George Bush claims to protect democracy yet his own father was responsible for starting the ball rolling in a process, which will eventually if left unchecked lead to the end of democracy and freedom world wide. Huge charity foundations with trillions in assets are the tools to subvert the state through financing powerful lobby groups propaganda and international agencies not designed to protect themselves from within. Is this really charity and why do we pay a disproportionate share of the tax base to make it possible for the largest profiting corporations to pay little or no taxes while using the funds promised to charity to subvert the authority of the people?
Health protection has to be about limiting the effects of unsafe products not punishing the victims. If chlorine and pesticides were removed from cigarettes decades ago, as they should have been, the resulting mortality would have dropped tremendously. Anti smoker advocates, describe environmental smoke to be as dangerous as Dioxins however never mention the fact Dioxins do exist in cigarettes. With proof, in hand they promote the idea smoking “can cause Cancer” why have they been so silent with absolute proof it does. We could counter of course does it have to? The answer lies in where the realization would lead next. How many informed mothers would avoid public transit if they knew how many millions of cigarettes it would take to equate the dioxin levels on every bus platform? The lobby calls itself anti tobacco yet they are all well aware of the fact Tobacco has limited if any significant danger compared to the other ingredients, which could be included in a cigarette. They always seem to avoid talking about the other ingredients for good reasons. Many reasons would affect potential future funding sources. The official carefully worded statements of Government offices and close inspection of what they actually say will bear this out. The constructing of the “no safe cigarette” myth so all smoking can be expressed as an equal risk. Constructions while avoiding the protection of those who have no idea what each cigarette may contain.
The life cycle of a tobacco, plant is less than one year whereas a pine tree can live for more than a hundred through the transformation of CO2 gases to oxygen a tree collects many other pollutants. The toxic abilities of that tree when burned include much more concentrated dangerous toxins than we would find in most other forms of organic life.
Add some chlorine to the mix and burn it. Can the results be seen as anything less than predictable? When you include the bark from that tree in fake tobacco, you understandably increase the health risk to the smokers who will consume the product mixture. When anyone walks into a grocery store, they can compare the ingredients of a bag of potato chips to make conscious decisions as to what brand suits their level of protection. What smoker can make equivalent assessments when even the same brand they smoke from day to day could contain vastly different ingredients. This is what is missing in autonomy rights the full disclosure allows for informed consent without which we cannot make judgments affecting our health and what is allowed to be administered to our own bodies. Every person is entitled to full disclosure, this is the right of an individual and that right is being consciously subverted by all anti smoker stakeholders for personal and corporate gain. The fact potato chips are considered dangerous enough to regulate and carry ingredients lists and cigarettes are virtually unregulated should be seen as a hypocrisy which exists in the many stakeholders currently protecting the Tobacco industries.
The heart and lung foundations, Cancer societies and numerous anti smoker advocates protect the wisdom in punishing the victim while increasing profits of the industries who’s vast array of ingredients are included in every package of cigarettes. Completely free of state or lobby intervention. If the industry can create safer cigarettes, the consumers have a right to benefit by those creations. Lobby groups are currently abdicating to not allow those improvements this is substantial proof of what they truly support and the health of community has little to do with it. How easily can the politically correctness whip be utilized to silence all opposition. It is unprecedented how many respect that whip until the realization occurs in who wields that whip. Then of course the whip becomes a symbol for opposition to this folly. That opposition always existed however each imposition grows the ability of us all to say enough. After that day who will we trust to protect the value of science and discovery with so many involved in this campaign and so many more refusing to speak against it, there will be few left who can be trusted to carry forward with any degree of trust or free pass to opinion based in what we now accept as integrity. The future of science will not be able to move without severe regulation and proof of every statement made.
The mistake we are making is in seeing this as the work of Nannies in fact unnecessary deaths are being used as fuel for profit centers. Contrasting of extremes makes for convincing propaganda campaigns, the campaigns would not be possible without those deaths. Political correctness will stop anyone from actually preventing the “preventable deaths”. The new anti fat campaigns are driven in similar profit margin mentalities. “Height to weight” replaced with “waist to hip” establishing larger contrasts. Increased taxes to consumers will be accompanied by 300% tax rebates to healthy food advertisers who created these lobbies to begin with. The media will play along with the new cash for tax exclusion schemes, once in place the media, groups and ad agencies become a necessary component in the plan and increased profits are assured. Political branding to protect the process will assure domination of the state is sustained in a symbiotic profit for power relationship one cannot exist without the other. WIN-WIN, while the working population again is dominated more severely in a no win situation.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-23-2004/0002115008&EDATE=
Hippocritic Oath -- Classical Version
”I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.”
Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.
Now thats entertainment....
There can be little doubt with ample evidence to establish this as fact:
Health protection movements and propaganda campaigns protect products of the industries that finance them, to the detriment of the victims who are now unfairly forced to shoulder the blame.
The World Health Organization in league with NGO partners in industry and the stakeholders it advises are responsible directly for unnecessary and substantial increases in mortality and human suffrage especially among smokers.
The HIA health intervention process abdicated by the WHO is in fact a domination strategy similar to strategies, which convicted the Rockefellers and Bill Gates more recently for unfairly dominating industries. Laws of Informed consent being ignored allowed the last large Fascist regime to kill millions. This regime has the potential to dwarf the last by creating hate and fear for nothing other than huge financial gains of a growing industry power base. A power base currently shedding the few remaining restrictions of any state authority. How many have and will die before common sense and sensibility is once more brought to the forefront in science and discovery. Consensus views directing our decisions are only as valid as those who are allowed to speak. Democracy is strengthened by the debate; if opponents are silenced, we no longer have democracy but something else much less desirable. George Bush claims to protect democracy yet his own father was responsible for starting the ball rolling in a process, which will eventually if left unchecked lead to the end of democracy and freedom world wide. Huge charity foundations with trillions in assets are the tools to subvert the state through financing powerful lobby groups propaganda and international agencies not designed to protect themselves from within. Is this really charity and why do we pay a disproportionate share of the tax base to make it possible for the largest profiting corporations to pay little or no taxes while using the funds promised to charity to subvert the authority of the people?
Health protection has to be about limiting the effects of unsafe products not punishing the victims. If chlorine and pesticides were removed from cigarettes decades ago, as they should have been, the resulting mortality would have dropped tremendously. Anti smoker advocates, describe environmental smoke to be as dangerous as Dioxins however never mention the fact Dioxins do exist in cigarettes. With proof, in hand they promote the idea smoking “can cause Cancer” why have they been so silent with absolute proof it does. We could counter of course does it have to? The answer lies in where the realization would lead next. How many informed mothers would avoid public transit if they knew how many millions of cigarettes it would take to equate the dioxin levels on every bus platform? The lobby calls itself anti tobacco yet they are all well aware of the fact Tobacco has limited if any significant danger compared to the other ingredients, which could be included in a cigarette. They always seem to avoid talking about the other ingredients for good reasons. Many reasons would affect potential future funding sources. The official carefully worded statements of Government offices and close inspection of what they actually say will bear this out. The constructing of the “no safe cigarette” myth so all smoking can be expressed as an equal risk. Constructions while avoiding the protection of those who have no idea what each cigarette may contain.
The life cycle of a tobacco, plant is less than one year whereas a pine tree can live for more than a hundred through the transformation of CO2 gases to oxygen a tree collects many other pollutants. The toxic abilities of that tree when burned include much more concentrated dangerous toxins than we would find in most other forms of organic life.
Add some chlorine to the mix and burn it. Can the results be seen as anything less than predictable? When you include the bark from that tree in fake tobacco, you understandably increase the health risk to the smokers who will consume the product mixture. When anyone walks into a grocery store, they can compare the ingredients of a bag of potato chips to make conscious decisions as to what brand suits their level of protection. What smoker can make equivalent assessments when even the same brand they smoke from day to day could contain vastly different ingredients. This is what is missing in autonomy rights the full disclosure allows for informed consent without which we cannot make judgments affecting our health and what is allowed to be administered to our own bodies. Every person is entitled to full disclosure, this is the right of an individual and that right is being consciously subverted by all anti smoker stakeholders for personal and corporate gain. The fact potato chips are considered dangerous enough to regulate and carry ingredients lists and cigarettes are virtually unregulated should be seen as a hypocrisy which exists in the many stakeholders currently protecting the Tobacco industries.
The heart and lung foundations, Cancer societies and numerous anti smoker advocates protect the wisdom in punishing the victim while increasing profits of the industries who’s vast array of ingredients are included in every package of cigarettes. Completely free of state or lobby intervention. If the industry can create safer cigarettes, the consumers have a right to benefit by those creations. Lobby groups are currently abdicating to not allow those improvements this is substantial proof of what they truly support and the health of community has little to do with it. How easily can the politically correctness whip be utilized to silence all opposition. It is unprecedented how many respect that whip until the realization occurs in who wields that whip. Then of course the whip becomes a symbol for opposition to this folly. That opposition always existed however each imposition grows the ability of us all to say enough. After that day who will we trust to protect the value of science and discovery with so many involved in this campaign and so many more refusing to speak against it, there will be few left who can be trusted to carry forward with any degree of trust or free pass to opinion based in what we now accept as integrity. The future of science will not be able to move without severe regulation and proof of every statement made.
The mistake we are making is in seeing this as the work of Nannies in fact unnecessary deaths are being used as fuel for profit centers. Contrasting of extremes makes for convincing propaganda campaigns, the campaigns would not be possible without those deaths. Political correctness will stop anyone from actually preventing the “preventable deaths”. The new anti fat campaigns are driven in similar profit margin mentalities. “Height to weight” replaced with “waist to hip” establishing larger contrasts. Increased taxes to consumers will be accompanied by 300% tax rebates to healthy food advertisers who created these lobbies to begin with. The media will play along with the new cash for tax exclusion schemes, once in place the media, groups and ad agencies become a necessary component in the plan and increased profits are assured. Political branding to protect the process will assure domination of the state is sustained in a symbiotic profit for power relationship one cannot exist without the other. WIN-WIN, while the working population again is dominated more severely in a no win situation.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-23-2004/0002115008&EDATE=
Hippocritic Oath -- Classical Version
”I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.”
Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.
Now thats entertainment....
Tolerance for the intolerant
Many Canadian Politicians in pandering to the views of powerful industry lobby groups. Or in dealing with Healthcare shortfalls caused by an aging population, fail to recognize what the reality in smoking reduction and anti fat promotions actually represent, An evolution in political correctness the next logical step in sustainable development processes. “Tolerance of the Intolerant”.
The views expressed by the Health ministries reflect the credibility of the Ministers directly and should be assessed in choosing our leadership in the future. The media voice is desperately needed to end the planned manipulations of our political processes. Perhaps in the way of political leadership, in selecting ministry leaders some background in the field of expertise connected to the ministry may be beneficial to avoid future embarrassments. A trust in the existing world-class ministry of the environment and the laws of scientific process would have been much more beneficial in understanding how to deal with a workplace hazard. If indeed a hazard exists at all. We sure could have saved a truckload of taxpayer’s cash in the process. 2 Billion dollars and counting.
Hatred and violence promoted and displayed at the focal point of Ontario Government wisdom at Stupid.ca Endorsements from a Health ministry educating our young with fine empathetic statements describing their own parents as smelling like dog fescues, endangering the health of others and Killing babies. Hardly a view Canadian culture would support in describing of any other identifiable group.
High-spirited political representations protecting us from ourselves are now in fact the order of the day regardless of credibility in the logic. The coalition of many health-based lobbies we see today is not a result of a public demand, rather the truth is found in the World Health Organization’s descriptions of HIA health interventions. The process Described by world-renowned Anti Smoker advocate and award winning author Dr. Robert Proctor in his books defining the process. The HIA process was later employed in the international Tobacco reduction treaty Canada signed and largely helped to create. In training the process it is advised “Inclusion of as many stakeholders as possible in order to dominate discussions and eventually decisions” As seen first hand in the Ontario public consultation process recently, which excluded the public for the most part, in favor of parroted speeches of prominent anti smoker lobbyists claiming to have the proxy of the public, despite the fact few in the public know who they are. The same groups many funded by the Federal government were responsible for providing information to our Local Health ministries and providing similar information amass at every smoking ban discussion across the country. 47,000 preventable deaths voiced by Mr. Smitherman the basis for the protections we will soon see. 45,000 preventable deaths will be the basis for curing the statistical fat pandemic. Smokers who don’t get out their carrot sticks will be summarily punished. Punished for the use of a legal product, in absence of a trial, for the betterment of the race and protection of the children. Fat pandemic strategies will see heavy taxation to be collected in the grocery stores and 300% tax rebates to the promoters of the plan to keep the media in the game.
Preventable deaths defined as the total of all disease categories statistically linked to smoking regardless of the magnitude of that statistical link. The enthusiasts now boldly decree smoking causes all smoking related mortality. 100% of the deaths in all the smoking related categories responsible for 25% of total mortality in the country. We are all so uneducated to know any better is the common thought in Nanny logic. The highest level of mortality ever reached in these disease categories Health Canada posts on their website second hand smoke results in the annual deaths of 100 children below the age of one year One would have to wonder what the magnitude of statistical significant risk factor was used, which theorized these infant deaths in a population of 30 million Proclamations supported despite the WHO research, which found no link between second hand smoke and childhood mortality conversely they found in fact a curative effect. Despite what we may have heard. The views of the medical community have spoken the medical charities devoted to the cause have all agreed. Epidemiologists around the world sing in unison the dangers are a fact of life, who could possibly disagree? Only the intolerant views of the deviant tobacco industry and those connected to it could possibly suggest an alternate view, who can argue with the experts and the opinions of political patronage delegates placed in UN agencies surely a model of superior human intelligence to be sure.
Common sense on the street by the uneducated masses has a few suspicions regardless of the unanimous opinion. Information provided at Health Canada’s website may help dispel a few urban myths. 420,000 smokers results in 150,000 deaths 36%. In 1960 54% of the population smoked, over 10 million. Which should have resulted by ratio in 3.6 million deaths or over the past 45 years 80,000 per year over double the current total of all 22 smoking related disease categories in a population increased by 50%???.
Further, we know the adverse effect model stated is a 30-year reactance to smoking behavior. With 2/3 reduction in use and tar content. We now see since 1989 an increase in these categories of close to 10,000 deaths. In 1970 smoking had been reduced by 20% and tar by 66% yet 35 years later we see a 20% increase in smoking related mortality??? Somehow the doctors have erred smoking it seems is beneficial to good health, lest we see a different reality the groups advising us are not as well educated or credible as they may seem. We have placed our trust in consensus theory replacing real science to guide our decisions perhaps for some of us the old ways offered better protections.
Baby boomers moving toward their final resting place will result in 10 million deaths in the next 30 years increasing Canadian mortality by more than 50%, a product of nature despite what category of cause you wish to place them. This is the real trendsetter in smoking related diseases, which as we all know were never preventable deaths at all. Government officials directed by the rumors are apparently not intelligent enough to see the deceit or dangers in alliance with buffoonery as we on the street find blatantly obvious.
If the voice of the media was some how awakened, perhaps some inclusive direction could be found in battling our current state of tolerating the intolerant. Charity only lasts so long eventually we will have to end the tolerance for poor leadership. A Liberal has to believe communism did not work simply because the wrong people were in charge. A realist understands Socialism does not work because the numbers simply never add up eventually some one has to pay for it all. Trudeau and the free spending Lieberals taught us that decades ago with the implementation of deficit financing prior to that era we had cash and Gold reserves in the bank of Canada and made profits loaning it out. The good old days. How quickly they forget.
FXR
The views expressed by the Health ministries reflect the credibility of the Ministers directly and should be assessed in choosing our leadership in the future. The media voice is desperately needed to end the planned manipulations of our political processes. Perhaps in the way of political leadership, in selecting ministry leaders some background in the field of expertise connected to the ministry may be beneficial to avoid future embarrassments. A trust in the existing world-class ministry of the environment and the laws of scientific process would have been much more beneficial in understanding how to deal with a workplace hazard. If indeed a hazard exists at all. We sure could have saved a truckload of taxpayer’s cash in the process. 2 Billion dollars and counting.
Hatred and violence promoted and displayed at the focal point of Ontario Government wisdom at Stupid.ca Endorsements from a Health ministry educating our young with fine empathetic statements describing their own parents as smelling like dog fescues, endangering the health of others and Killing babies. Hardly a view Canadian culture would support in describing of any other identifiable group.
High-spirited political representations protecting us from ourselves are now in fact the order of the day regardless of credibility in the logic. The coalition of many health-based lobbies we see today is not a result of a public demand, rather the truth is found in the World Health Organization’s descriptions of HIA health interventions. The process Described by world-renowned Anti Smoker advocate and award winning author Dr. Robert Proctor in his books defining the process. The HIA process was later employed in the international Tobacco reduction treaty Canada signed and largely helped to create. In training the process it is advised “Inclusion of as many stakeholders as possible in order to dominate discussions and eventually decisions” As seen first hand in the Ontario public consultation process recently, which excluded the public for the most part, in favor of parroted speeches of prominent anti smoker lobbyists claiming to have the proxy of the public, despite the fact few in the public know who they are. The same groups many funded by the Federal government were responsible for providing information to our Local Health ministries and providing similar information amass at every smoking ban discussion across the country. 47,000 preventable deaths voiced by Mr. Smitherman the basis for the protections we will soon see. 45,000 preventable deaths will be the basis for curing the statistical fat pandemic. Smokers who don’t get out their carrot sticks will be summarily punished. Punished for the use of a legal product, in absence of a trial, for the betterment of the race and protection of the children. Fat pandemic strategies will see heavy taxation to be collected in the grocery stores and 300% tax rebates to the promoters of the plan to keep the media in the game.
Preventable deaths defined as the total of all disease categories statistically linked to smoking regardless of the magnitude of that statistical link. The enthusiasts now boldly decree smoking causes all smoking related mortality. 100% of the deaths in all the smoking related categories responsible for 25% of total mortality in the country. We are all so uneducated to know any better is the common thought in Nanny logic. The highest level of mortality ever reached in these disease categories Health Canada posts on their website second hand smoke results in the annual deaths of 100 children below the age of one year One would have to wonder what the magnitude of statistical significant risk factor was used, which theorized these infant deaths in a population of 30 million Proclamations supported despite the WHO research, which found no link between second hand smoke and childhood mortality conversely they found in fact a curative effect. Despite what we may have heard. The views of the medical community have spoken the medical charities devoted to the cause have all agreed. Epidemiologists around the world sing in unison the dangers are a fact of life, who could possibly disagree? Only the intolerant views of the deviant tobacco industry and those connected to it could possibly suggest an alternate view, who can argue with the experts and the opinions of political patronage delegates placed in UN agencies surely a model of superior human intelligence to be sure.
Common sense on the street by the uneducated masses has a few suspicions regardless of the unanimous opinion. Information provided at Health Canada’s website may help dispel a few urban myths. 420,000 smokers results in 150,000 deaths 36%. In 1960 54% of the population smoked, over 10 million. Which should have resulted by ratio in 3.6 million deaths or over the past 45 years 80,000 per year over double the current total of all 22 smoking related disease categories in a population increased by 50%???.
Further, we know the adverse effect model stated is a 30-year reactance to smoking behavior. With 2/3 reduction in use and tar content. We now see since 1989 an increase in these categories of close to 10,000 deaths. In 1970 smoking had been reduced by 20% and tar by 66% yet 35 years later we see a 20% increase in smoking related mortality??? Somehow the doctors have erred smoking it seems is beneficial to good health, lest we see a different reality the groups advising us are not as well educated or credible as they may seem. We have placed our trust in consensus theory replacing real science to guide our decisions perhaps for some of us the old ways offered better protections.
Baby boomers moving toward their final resting place will result in 10 million deaths in the next 30 years increasing Canadian mortality by more than 50%, a product of nature despite what category of cause you wish to place them. This is the real trendsetter in smoking related diseases, which as we all know were never preventable deaths at all. Government officials directed by the rumors are apparently not intelligent enough to see the deceit or dangers in alliance with buffoonery as we on the street find blatantly obvious.
If the voice of the media was some how awakened, perhaps some inclusive direction could be found in battling our current state of tolerating the intolerant. Charity only lasts so long eventually we will have to end the tolerance for poor leadership. A Liberal has to believe communism did not work simply because the wrong people were in charge. A realist understands Socialism does not work because the numbers simply never add up eventually some one has to pay for it all. Trudeau and the free spending Lieberals taught us that decades ago with the implementation of deficit financing prior to that era we had cash and Gold reserves in the bank of Canada and made profits loaning it out. The good old days. How quickly they forget.
FXR
Can't we all just get along?
It is all in the way you see it
I am writing in search of a consensus; a proposal put forward of sorts for advocacy and broad community support among those, like me, who grow tired of the debate and wish to simplify the process.
So much is lost financially and in mortality waiting for processes of discovery to find the cures and solutions to our daily fears and shortened lifespan due to preventable Healthcare issues. Perhaps the solution lies in the definition of a single word. The word “fact” is often confused most often with the word “opinion”. The general public is not well informed, or informed at all, in most cases as to the type of fact presented. There are indeed many types of facts however generally they can be classified into two categories; “Political” or “Scientific” I regard as “Real”.
If we were more aware of the distinction, many interpretations could be made in decision-making processes, which would of course solve many of our daily problems much more expeditiously while minimizing costly errors. In the field of anti smoker advocacy for instance political or P-facts are the preferred choice of those guided in consensus views. Unfortunately, even scientists or researchers are in peril of being drawn into supporting P-Facts when R-Facts are more appropriate. Simply as a result of intimidation and monetary enticements, which are allowed to guide their comments and depreciate the process. Reclassification of a single word backed up with a checks and balances process could end the confusion, leading to higher confidence, in the integrity of those who provide our information bases, vital to our well being.
Political facts can be described as man made in order to sell a political view or increase popularity.
Scientific facts can be described as the type which are immovable the result of real discovery and direct observation reproducible and not possible to change without a more accurate means of observation accepted in peer review.
If we were guided in such a redefinition, we could legislate the expression of all views as P-Facts or R-Facts (Political or Real) in all public statements to suit the validity of the argument. Kind of like the hate crimes laws to protect all of community while not impugning the rights of others, while respecting at the same time the value of free speech. If anyone substituted P-Facts for R-Facts, it would not be hard to detect and the credibility of the individual could be considered in future discussions.
Perhaps at some point, we could set up a credit bureau of sorts. Ratings could be assigned to professionals who have been reported to have misled the public. The public could then properly assign credibility to those who wish to lead us by simply looking up a beacon score. Perhaps if a score got to low a mandatory ethics course would be prescribed taking away a license to practice as a doctor or researcher and the word integrity in kind could be reevaluated to actually mean more than having a larger base of support.
How would the legions of those set to protect us from ourselves fare in such a process? Not well, I am afraid, for the knowledge they portray is derived in consensus and as ad agencies will; credibility and R-Facts are laid to waste in popularity modeling as exhibited on the 6 o’clock news and other fictional presentations designed to amuse, or stimulate other human emotions, to suit the purpose being purchased. Social engineering principles at Health Canada described in detail, establishes the Government as the ruler of personal opinion and authority over what is credible. Monopoly rule, in spite of community opinions only announced opinions are considered credible. Traditionally community opinion in addition to personal experience were also guided by 3000 years of civilization and predicated for the most part in trial and error, making those opinions closer to R Facts, or as we know them “common sense”. Clearer understanding of all the systems in play could suit us much more efficiently and establish the R-Fact ideals of democracy replacing the form of government we have now.
Lets think about it and maybe some Government funding could be found to advocate for the word “Fact”
Possible names for the non-profit or charity could be suggested in order to acquaint others with the cause something with brad range social appeal like my favorite choices:
“I am sick of the bullshit and I am not going to take it any more”
Or
“I refuse to pay any more taxes to these thieving lying sacks”
Regards; FXR
I am writing in search of a consensus; a proposal put forward of sorts for advocacy and broad community support among those, like me, who grow tired of the debate and wish to simplify the process.
So much is lost financially and in mortality waiting for processes of discovery to find the cures and solutions to our daily fears and shortened lifespan due to preventable Healthcare issues. Perhaps the solution lies in the definition of a single word. The word “fact” is often confused most often with the word “opinion”. The general public is not well informed, or informed at all, in most cases as to the type of fact presented. There are indeed many types of facts however generally they can be classified into two categories; “Political” or “Scientific” I regard as “Real”.
If we were more aware of the distinction, many interpretations could be made in decision-making processes, which would of course solve many of our daily problems much more expeditiously while minimizing costly errors. In the field of anti smoker advocacy for instance political or P-facts are the preferred choice of those guided in consensus views. Unfortunately, even scientists or researchers are in peril of being drawn into supporting P-Facts when R-Facts are more appropriate. Simply as a result of intimidation and monetary enticements, which are allowed to guide their comments and depreciate the process. Reclassification of a single word backed up with a checks and balances process could end the confusion, leading to higher confidence, in the integrity of those who provide our information bases, vital to our well being.
Political facts can be described as man made in order to sell a political view or increase popularity.
Scientific facts can be described as the type which are immovable the result of real discovery and direct observation reproducible and not possible to change without a more accurate means of observation accepted in peer review.
If we were guided in such a redefinition, we could legislate the expression of all views as P-Facts or R-Facts (Political or Real) in all public statements to suit the validity of the argument. Kind of like the hate crimes laws to protect all of community while not impugning the rights of others, while respecting at the same time the value of free speech. If anyone substituted P-Facts for R-Facts, it would not be hard to detect and the credibility of the individual could be considered in future discussions.
Perhaps at some point, we could set up a credit bureau of sorts. Ratings could be assigned to professionals who have been reported to have misled the public. The public could then properly assign credibility to those who wish to lead us by simply looking up a beacon score. Perhaps if a score got to low a mandatory ethics course would be prescribed taking away a license to practice as a doctor or researcher and the word integrity in kind could be reevaluated to actually mean more than having a larger base of support.
How would the legions of those set to protect us from ourselves fare in such a process? Not well, I am afraid, for the knowledge they portray is derived in consensus and as ad agencies will; credibility and R-Facts are laid to waste in popularity modeling as exhibited on the 6 o’clock news and other fictional presentations designed to amuse, or stimulate other human emotions, to suit the purpose being purchased. Social engineering principles at Health Canada described in detail, establishes the Government as the ruler of personal opinion and authority over what is credible. Monopoly rule, in spite of community opinions only announced opinions are considered credible. Traditionally community opinion in addition to personal experience were also guided by 3000 years of civilization and predicated for the most part in trial and error, making those opinions closer to R Facts, or as we know them “common sense”. Clearer understanding of all the systems in play could suit us much more efficiently and establish the R-Fact ideals of democracy replacing the form of government we have now.
Lets think about it and maybe some Government funding could be found to advocate for the word “Fact”
Possible names for the non-profit or charity could be suggested in order to acquaint others with the cause something with brad range social appeal like my favorite choices:
“I am sick of the bullshit and I am not going to take it any more”
Or
“I refuse to pay any more taxes to these thieving lying sacks”
Regards; FXR
Saturday, January 07, 2006
How do they get away with this crap
Proctor described the identical strategy in a series of books, which won him an award from the medical community. He described how to moralize the use of Hitler’s process to lead medical decisions and Health protection strategies in dominance principles taking advantage of moral ethics existing in the target demographic. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html
HIA health interventions as described at the World Health Organization establish three political tools Government now utilizes for control and profits. For your own good and we must protect the children
-First through training and examples the stakeholder is taught how to link any event to Health.
-Second Protection of Children as the most predominant choice of strategies provides a highroad position offering through protection of children an indefensible position to dissenters. This allows many willing participants to be drawn in and media based public censures will draw in many unwilling participants proxies in order to maintain public images.
-Third is the domination strategy which through control of who is allowed to present an opposing argument along with the use of many stakeholders willing or not a discussion can be controlled allowing the ability to create facts through consensus regardless of what science and common sense would normally dictate. This allows pretty well any political direction with established facts a basis for direction and expenditures.
Strategies where this process was used can be seen in smoking bans, Bicycle helmets, Fat campaigns, Deadbeat dads, Homosexual rights, Flue pandemics, Freon causing damage to the ozone layer despite being 4 times heavier than oxygen and The Kyoto accord treaty allowing global warming theories taking precedence over smog created by megatons of Nox and Sox emissions of industry as opposed to CO2 emissions which amount to plant food. Facts to support any argument can be created at will any case study result can become an argument through consensus view determining relevance in what ever is found.
This book can allow a lot of insight in who you think are now controlling the Liberal party and who they actually are. http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6564.html
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
News article
News & Views
The nanny state or the nazi state
by Klaus Rohrich
The sound of jackboots reverberating through the night is back. This time, however, the jackboots are birkenstocks and tasseled loafers. It’s the health Nazis who are marching to save us from ourselves.
Like the Nazis of the 1930s, this new wave of fascists began insidiously under the guise of improving our longevity and the quality of our lives. They have since evolved into a repressive regimen that threatens to regulate even the smallest and least significant of our habits.
It all began some 25 years ago when some kind soul thought it might be a good idea for everyone who rides a motorcycle to wear a helmet. Many voluntarily chose to do so. But, since the idea was not universally or voluntarily accepted, the New Fascists lobbied to have legislation enacted to force people to do so. The rationale was that it would reduce fatalities and insurance rates.
Notice anything different about highway fatalities or insurance rates?
They segued from motorcycle helmets to smoking with the subtlety of a sidewinder. First it was ‘no smoking’ sections in restaurants. Then came no smoking in the workplace. Then, separately vented smoking rooms in restaurants, then no smoking in any public building. Now they are pursuing no smoking policies in any public place. Is there a pattern here?
In the U.S., legislation is being drafted that makes smoking in a home or area that contains children, child abuse with penalties similar to those imposed on people who violently harm their children.
As I pass by building entrances around which smokers are huddled indulging in their addiction, I am reminded of the gradual marginalization of the Jews at the hands of fascists and wonder if smokers will some day be rounded up in the middle of the night and packed into boxcars.
Once the anti-smoking initiatives became successful, the New Fascists have realized they’ve struck paydirt. Following their stunning courtroom victories against big tobacco companies, they have forged an unholy alliance with trial lawyers and are starting to go after anything that moves.
Recently some trial balloons were floated to see if the time was ripe to go after fast food outlets. Some poor unfortunate moron in the U.S. launched a suit against KFC, Burger King and others, hoping to collect damages for the heart disease and high blood pressure that he claimed was brought on through his decades of eating at these places. While the suits were summarily dismissed, don’t believe for a minute that this is the end of it. The suit was a bellwether that will ultimately lead to the rape and pillage of the fast food business in similar fashion to the tobacco industry.
Equally there are initiatives afoot to hold gun manufacturers legally accountable for street crimes. Several suits have been launched in the U.S. with less than successful results. But, as people’s attitudes change the idea of suing gun manufacturers will be revisited. You can count on it.
And speaking of guns, gun control is the next battle in the war to save us from ourselves. In Canada, we’ve spent a billion dollars on a gun registry that basically criminalized law-abiding citizens and did nothing to save even one life, despite the government’s propaganda to the contrary. This year in Toronto gun violence is at an all-time high. Yet still the New Fascists are claiming victory by citing the fact that police forces across the country are consulting with the gun registry in an effort to solve crimes. It’s a sure bet that the majority of the guns police are inquiring about are not registered, meaning the billion they’ve blown on registering guns have made absolutely no difference to street crime.
Do you see a pattern here? We are gradually being deprived of basic rights all in the name of keeping us safe. The key assumption is that we are incapable of looking after ourselves, so we need the Nanny State to do it for us.
We are not allowed to be responsible for our bad habits or behaviour, because personal responsibility is a key ingredient of democracy.
We smoke not because we chose to. but because we are addicted and tobacco executives engineered that addiction. It’s not because we choose to smoke. We’re obese. That’s because there are so many fast food restaurants and not because we are too lazy or ignorant to prepare a well-balanced, nutritious meal. People are shooting each other to death in the streets of our cities. It’s the fault of gun companies and not the fault of the perpetrators, who happen to have anger issues or got a raw deal from society.
If you’re wondering what the future holds, my guess is more of the same. Just look at all the juicy targets that are still untouched. No one has really taken a good run at SUVs yet. What about beer companies or distilleries? Nightclubs are a good next target as are professional sports organizations (I have high blood pressure because watching the game stressed me out) There’s a lot of fertile ground.
Safety, security and freedom from responsibility come at a pretty high price as the Nanny State gradually turns into the Nazi State.
The nanny state or the nazi state
by Klaus Rohrich
The sound of jackboots reverberating through the night is back. This time, however, the jackboots are birkenstocks and tasseled loafers. It’s the health Nazis who are marching to save us from ourselves.
Like the Nazis of the 1930s, this new wave of fascists began insidiously under the guise of improving our longevity and the quality of our lives. They have since evolved into a repressive regimen that threatens to regulate even the smallest and least significant of our habits.
It all began some 25 years ago when some kind soul thought it might be a good idea for everyone who rides a motorcycle to wear a helmet. Many voluntarily chose to do so. But, since the idea was not universally or voluntarily accepted, the New Fascists lobbied to have legislation enacted to force people to do so. The rationale was that it would reduce fatalities and insurance rates.
Notice anything different about highway fatalities or insurance rates?
They segued from motorcycle helmets to smoking with the subtlety of a sidewinder. First it was ‘no smoking’ sections in restaurants. Then came no smoking in the workplace. Then, separately vented smoking rooms in restaurants, then no smoking in any public building. Now they are pursuing no smoking policies in any public place. Is there a pattern here?
In the U.S., legislation is being drafted that makes smoking in a home or area that contains children, child abuse with penalties similar to those imposed on people who violently harm their children.
As I pass by building entrances around which smokers are huddled indulging in their addiction, I am reminded of the gradual marginalization of the Jews at the hands of fascists and wonder if smokers will some day be rounded up in the middle of the night and packed into boxcars.
Once the anti-smoking initiatives became successful, the New Fascists have realized they’ve struck paydirt. Following their stunning courtroom victories against big tobacco companies, they have forged an unholy alliance with trial lawyers and are starting to go after anything that moves.
Recently some trial balloons were floated to see if the time was ripe to go after fast food outlets. Some poor unfortunate moron in the U.S. launched a suit against KFC, Burger King and others, hoping to collect damages for the heart disease and high blood pressure that he claimed was brought on through his decades of eating at these places. While the suits were summarily dismissed, don’t believe for a minute that this is the end of it. The suit was a bellwether that will ultimately lead to the rape and pillage of the fast food business in similar fashion to the tobacco industry.
Equally there are initiatives afoot to hold gun manufacturers legally accountable for street crimes. Several suits have been launched in the U.S. with less than successful results. But, as people’s attitudes change the idea of suing gun manufacturers will be revisited. You can count on it.
And speaking of guns, gun control is the next battle in the war to save us from ourselves. In Canada, we’ve spent a billion dollars on a gun registry that basically criminalized law-abiding citizens and did nothing to save even one life, despite the government’s propaganda to the contrary. This year in Toronto gun violence is at an all-time high. Yet still the New Fascists are claiming victory by citing the fact that police forces across the country are consulting with the gun registry in an effort to solve crimes. It’s a sure bet that the majority of the guns police are inquiring about are not registered, meaning the billion they’ve blown on registering guns have made absolutely no difference to street crime.
Do you see a pattern here? We are gradually being deprived of basic rights all in the name of keeping us safe. The key assumption is that we are incapable of looking after ourselves, so we need the Nanny State to do it for us.
We are not allowed to be responsible for our bad habits or behaviour, because personal responsibility is a key ingredient of democracy.
We smoke not because we chose to. but because we are addicted and tobacco executives engineered that addiction. It’s not because we choose to smoke. We’re obese. That’s because there are so many fast food restaurants and not because we are too lazy or ignorant to prepare a well-balanced, nutritious meal. People are shooting each other to death in the streets of our cities. It’s the fault of gun companies and not the fault of the perpetrators, who happen to have anger issues or got a raw deal from society.
If you’re wondering what the future holds, my guess is more of the same. Just look at all the juicy targets that are still untouched. No one has really taken a good run at SUVs yet. What about beer companies or distilleries? Nightclubs are a good next target as are professional sports organizations (I have high blood pressure because watching the game stressed me out) There’s a lot of fertile ground.
Safety, security and freedom from responsibility come at a pretty high price as the Nanny State gradually turns into the Nazi State.
Right or Left always avoid the evil which lies in the center
Liberal is no longer what most believe it to be
When Sheila was pushed out of a Party she had supported lifetime.
She made one simple statement " their are some very dangerous people running the Liberal party."
Time some of us started to realize what that meant. Paul Martin claims being a Liberal is a sign of higher intelligence not possible across the floor. Democracy is about debate passion comes from the debate without opposition we have dictatorship. Candidates are sent to Ottawa to represent the people those representatives when insulted or ignored in fact are representative of a population who are also being insulted and ignored. Martin states he will not support the majority in favor of minorities’ sounds nice in news bytes but his job demands he do exactly that. If a minority has a problem with government it would be up to them to convince all parties the problem exists, which needs repair. If an argument is present by opposing members they represent the voters who agree with them or the job will be up for debate during the following election. Ad agency spin can not oversee the rules of a democracy if an injustice occurs it is for the courts to decide. Making Law is the business of government the issues of healthcare child care and marriages are all provincial jurisdictions. Martin seeks to take the jurisdiction of the provinces into his own realm this violates the entire confederation agreement, which formed this country.
Social Marketing is "the application of marketing technologies developed in the commercial sector to the solution of social problems where the bottom line is behavior change." It involves: "the analysis, planning, execution and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behavior of target audiences to improve their personal welfare and that of society."
This message is from our Federal government while they are not intruding on provincial jurisdiction.
The message?
It's OK for the government to change what Canadians think as opposed to listening to what we do think.
Also a contradictory view of Liberals proud of our Canadian heritage, and determined to change it through nation building Martin talks about all the time. What can one expect from an Industrialist leading a socialist party. Socialism of the industrial view as opposed to John Lenin’s perspective they love to emulate.
Over reaching is a catchy phrase when you come to media spin it really means exaggeration and lies. Martin uses the term all the time. In anti smoker campaigns in Ontario we learned through the hub of government knowledge a website called stupid. Smokers are self-indulgent, harm others without remorse, smell like dog crap and kill babies and abuse their own children. The casualties are of course posted on Health Canada's website with more Government intelligence gathered by consensus of well paid NGOs or Lobby groups Government mercenaries who verbalize what the government dare not.
For instance the research on Health Canada’s website inadvertently proves we should all be smoking with 2/3 reduction in use and dangerous ingredients strict regulations in growing conditions and new curing processes reducing 90% of the histamines. We saw a dramatic rise in mortality in the past 45 years smoking related disease has risen by the same 2/3-figure smoking was reduced.
Go figure. Sir Richard Doll would roll over in his grave laughing if he heard what they are claiming about second hand smoke. In a Smokey bar, et al; Repace Australia 2005, Total hazardous chemicals 163 Nanograms per cubic meter oxygen, measured and verified by numerous named studies he referred to.
He claimed this level was 10,000 times the known safe level, this established the known safe level at 1.63 Pico grams per cubic meter of oxygen. He stated this was the level recognized by the American government in water air and food listed as an extreme health risk and a known carcinogen.
He went on to say after smoking bans the measured levels were 9 Nanograms per cubic meter still beyond known safe levels by simple calculation in a non smoking environment the known safe level is known to be exceeded by more than 500 times.
For comparison Benzene is a known carcinogen the known safe level is 1 part per million or 360 milligrams per cubic meter of air. The same federal government just increased the standard for Benzene in auto fuel to 1 liter per hundred. How many know what gasoline smell like?
Diesel fuel exhaust set records for growing cancers in a petrie dish real science calls diesel exhaust a carcinogen a fact they have known for 50 years successful lobby groups have kept the name Diesel off the carcinogens list. With little fanfare or media attention it was finally listed this year. How many unsuspecting mothers have been pushing baby carriages into bus and train stations for years not knowing what risk they place on their baby even today? Yet deadly invisible missiles from cigarette smoke are seen as child abuse. How many cancers have resulted over the years due to exposure to diesel and gasoline fumes, yet virtually no funds from Cancer institutes to measure the effects?
Philanthropy from the oil companies funding medical universities and involvement as sponsoring NGOs has protected oil companies for years from a label of mass murderer which would make Tobacco manufacturers pale by comparison. Come to think of it where did the business practices and ethics schooled to oil company executives originate if not with Rockefeller dominance strategies. They taught Hitler how to moralize his decisions in eugenics principles. Similar to the ethical values we see today in Canadian politics.
Multi cultural heritage is in fact a short lived heritage it began with Trudeau's rendition of a constitution Cretin took it to new levels only to be out done by Martin. Divisions of culture to augment reginalization nice little boxes for management purposes and to be played against each other to embellish leadership during an election. The press? Well in hand, as the Federal government is the largest purchaser of media in Canada. The Pan Canadian strategy will soon have us paying 75% sin taxes on hamburger and allowing 300% tax rebates to industry friends who advertise healthy choices. Gifts all around will keep medical and media communities singing along for decades. Zieg Heil.
Canadian Heritage is and was always one culture not many. Others don't deserve to live in culturally diverse neighborhoods they deserve to live in mine.
Red was the dot on the planes which bombed pearl harbor, The arm bands on the nazi SS and of course the Chinese and Russian flags among others. At a time when someone could be run out of town on a rail for supporting Socialism we wound up with a red maple leaf, signifying the end of Canadian culture and Identity. Martin now goes the next step as a centrist he steals what is popular from the Left and the right and goes the third way. It was amusing to hear one of his supporters recently calling an opponent the name befitting the elitist single party dictators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)