The ‘Truth’ About Tobacco and Other Adorable Lies

Warning: No beagles, monkeys, nor rodents Ever contracted lung cancer from systematically exposing them to tobacco products, so just go on and have a nice day.” Wouldn’t this message from our Surgeon General be a refreshing way to open a fresh pack of smokes? Of course it would, especially because it’s the truth.

This writing isn’t really about the rightness or wrongness of tobacco use, rather it’s intention is to serve as a reminder of the most important power we as citizens and consumers equally share; our freedom. If we are free to think and believe whatever we wish, why do we give this right away so often and so easily? Why do we zombie walk through life with our eyes wide shut?

I remember when I was first exposed to the truth behind the truth about tobacco. I was so intrigued, Alice couldn’t be more curious! I read everything I could get my hands on upon the subject. I couldn’t believe how much information was at my fingertips, but mostly I couldn’t believe that so many of us were not informed nor willing to be informed.

My favorite read on the subject of tobacco studies is “Smoke Screens” by Richard White. This book is packed with information and references for further information for inquiring minds. It’s a very well thought out and informative study. However, just because someone writes a compelling book doesn’t make it true, and that’s precisely where freedom comes into play.

Facts are extremely helpful, the scientific methodology is far superior to far-fetched supposings. The tricky part is to recognize when facts are fiction and when there is no real science to support them. Without facts and numbers we are left with little more than fabulous story-telling. You can see why the tobacco issue is so marvelous a subject as it has all the elements of fiction but is believed as fact. Fascinating.

The quickest way to prove this to yourself would be to go and just try to sue any tobacco company in any state or country of your choice… Here’s what you’d get;

“It is not within judicial knowledge that cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer: this is an issue which I am duty-bound to approach with an open mind and to decide on the basis of the evidence led before me; and the burden of proving it is on the pursuer.

In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation. Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a non-smoker, it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer.”

This is exactly what Mrs. Margaret McTear heard from Judge Nimmo Smith in 2005, when she sought out a suit against Imperial Tobacco Limited for her husbands death due to lung cancer. It appears that there’s not enough evidence to prove that lung cancer is ’caused’ by smoking, it won’t even hold up in a courtroom. Evidence, why is there not enough evidence that tobacco use causes lung cancer? Why does the family physician and the media act as if the evidence were implicit?

I thought it was evidently clear myself that smoking caused lung cancer. Was I misled? The Surgeon General and the American Heart Association wouldn’t lie, would they? What about all those anti-smoking campaigns, why have they spent so much time Pipe tobacco near me

and money convincing us of this Truth about Tobacco? And, if it’s not true that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease why is the government so doggedly determined to make us believe it does? Good questions, I know, because I’ve asked them myself.

Let’s pretend that this is true;

Smoking does not have, has nothing to do with, nor does it cause:

  • black lung
  • low birth weight
  • passive smoke cancers and deaths
  • ‘tar’ buildup in the lungs
  • 4000 deadly chemicals
  • carbon monoxide poisoning and deaths
  • pre-mature aging and early death
  • a singular disease that effects only tobacco users

Why has smoking decreased and cancer increased? Why do the largest populations of smokers, like Japan, also have the longest lifespans? If 1/3 of the population with lung cancer is attributed to smoking; what is to be attributed to the remaining 2/3 of lung cancer sufferers?

What if everything we believed about smoking is false, were would we stand in this scenario?

Interestingly, the word ’causes’ is not the same equivalent to the words; ‘may be a factor’ in regards to cancer. “May be a factor”is not a scientific statement, just so we’re clear. “There may be a God” is not a scientific statement, but the words of Mark Twain might be;

“Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God.”

This only goes to show that science isn’t the all in all of everything. However, when it comes to outrageous statements like “smoking causes lung cancer” it better damned well have some real science to back it up! Even a theory has to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous experimental studies and agreed upon by real scientists that have no other agenda but the evidence at hand. No one ever touts on about the Theory of Tobacco, it is always proceeded by; the Truth.

Looking at the list above, you will see a number of accusations against smoking, NONE of which has EVER been proven scientifically. Foundational Fact: No researcher has ever managed to induce lung cancer in an animal with tobacco products. Back in 1982 the President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, Professor Schrauzer, testified before the United States congressional committee that; “No ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer. No one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.”

The clincher: Secondhand smoke. If we can’t get’em by the balls, we can get’em where they sleep! Brilliant!

Banning?… what a horrifically egotistical Nazi control word. We need our heads wrapped securely around this issue of banning our brothers. Societal pressures is where the real harm is being done in regards to smoking, this affects everyone. Being anti-anything will cause an early death faster than any known substance or lifestyle. Demonizing human beings, setting neighbor against neighbor is the fall out from this smoke screen. When our beliefs rob the freedoms of our brothers, have we gained any real freedom at all?

“The excess of abstinence is equally hazardous; the fanaticism of the anti-smoking lobby.” -Ian Dunbar

How often have we looked sideways at the public smoker and set them on the cement slab of our slum-dog thoughts? The poor smoke more readily than the wealthy. Is it wrong for the poor to want to feel a sense of calmness and ease that smoking can give? Compassion is replaced by separation as we deny our brothers and ban them from ‘decent’ society.

If the anti-smoking lobby is acting out of false presumptions, what is the real truth behind the truth about tobacco? What could possibly be so important an issue that would cause our government to attack a $35 billion dollar a year industry? It must be the benevolent love of our government for human life over profit that’s being accounted for here, right?

Countries DO profit from tobacco industry and use. We buy and sell tobacco, we employ and harvest tobacco. We profit from tobacco. Here’s an interesting read from The Tobacco Atlas, “During 2000-2004, the value of cigarettes sold in the United States averaged $71 billion per year, while cigarette smoking was responsible for an estimated $193 billion in annual health-related economic losses.”

What is interesting is that you will find that statistical numbers never match when it comes to anything tobacco. Is it $35 or $71 billion a year? Is there a 50% annual benefit for those who peddle tobacco? How was smoking found responsible for $193 billion in health related losses? Did the patient check the box that says ‘smoker’ and thus his health issues were immediately attributed to said smoking?

Smokers don’t get the perks from insurance companies that non-smokers do, so I’m curious as to just how and who was affected by these losses. Was it the patient that couldn’t get proper insurance because he was a smoker? Was it the doctor that never got paid by the uninsured? Was it the business of which the patient worked that suffered losses because they dead? Where do we come up with these numbers and why are they so inconsistent?

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. – Mark Twain

I do know that the anti-smoking lobbyists use the increased tax on cigarettes to pay for their advertising against smoking at the tune of 9 billion annually. There is NO WAY the government would create and back an anti-smoking campaign without the assured knowledge of its profiting from it. America is a business.

I digress. So, what other reasons would a government create a controlled anti-smoking campaign? Money and/or to create a distraction to cover up some nasty bit of behavior are the only two reasonable reasons that come to mind.

Could it be… ?

  • money from public health industries, ironically, is a billion dollar business?
  • money from quitting-smoking prescriptions like Chantix?
  • money from smoking cessation services and devices?
  • diversion from the real reason research and cures for cancer are not progressing?
  • diversion by blaming people for cancer by being the cause of it?
  • diversion by blaming people for cancer rather than government issued radioactive testing? (My personal Fav)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *