|
06-27-2007, 01:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Smoking Is Healthier Than Fascism
Smoking Is Healthier Than Fascism
Smoking Ban Is About Government Control; Believe it or not, the state really doesn't care about your health Paul Joseph Watson The regulation of the personal habit of smoking, including new legislative moves in San Francisco to ban cigarettes in private homes, and its enforcement by an eager cadre of state snoops and snitches, represents nothing more than a move on behalf of big brother towards the complete subjugation and shackling of the individual. To this end, smoking is healthier than fascism. Two new developments today have once again brought this issue into focus and the true agenda behind it needs to be exposed. In France, a nation once noted as being rich in tobacco connoisseurs, 175,000 "cigarette police" have been given the task of randomly snooping around offices, schools, factories and any other "public spaces" in order to sniff out flouters of a new total ban on smoking. In San Francisco California, a city ordinance described as "the most stringent tobacco regulation in America" would ban smoking everywhere, including private homes and apartments, sparing only large detached family homes - and if they squeeze this one through expect those homes to be targeted next. This is not a debate about the dangers of passive smoking, we all know smoking is bad for us and those around us. On an individual level, freedom includes the right to do dumb things and whether others should be subject to our vices comes down to two questions, is fascism more unhealthy for a society than passive smoking and does the government really care about your health? Dare I suggest that western governments raining down depleted uranium in all corners of the world, spraying chemtrails in our skies, playing Dr. Frankenstein with our food, drugging us into oblivion with psychotropic poison pills, shooting x-rays to expose our naked bodies, and injecting us with toxic vaccines really care about our physical well-being? Do an elite that openly advocate culling the majority of the world's population really want to put a stop to cancer? The answer is no, so why the transatlantic obsession to have us stub out our cigarettes? It's all about control, it's all about letting you know who the bosses are. If the government can regulate personal habits and behavior, what's next? If the state is so concerned about our good health as they would have you believe, why not use the latest scientific advancements to remove that nasty aggressive gene that causes so much unhappiness? Well, you're causing those around you distress and harming their health so why not? Are your political opinions a mental illness? Are they harming society? Perhaps we should ban certain types of "free" speech that is offensive to others. You see where this is all heading - how long before our wall mounted personal x-ray body scanners are accompanied by special smoke detectors that inform on you to the local Stasi if you dare to light up? Smoking may be very unhealthy but I'd certainly rather be around a bunch of smokers than a bunch of Fascists. If you have never smoked and couldn't give a damn if it gets banned then consider the fact that cell phones are emerging as the new kid on the bloc as far as cancer's best friend goes. British expert Professor Lawrie Challis said last week that mobile phones could turn out to be as harmful as cigarettes. How would you react if the government suddenly announced that your Blackberry was off limits because the anti-cell phone lobby got a bill through? We live in a paranoid world overpopulated by ninnying jellyfish who dare not dip their toe in the water in case there's a law against it, it might upset someone, or it might be bad for their health. Writer Alan Caruba adds the following, "There are few, if any, people that do not know there is an element of risk involved in the decision to smoke. There is risk involved when any American gets into his car and goes anywhere." "Driving kills over 40,000 Americans every year. It is the price we pay for the mobility and other benefits cars and vehicles provide. There is, in fact, risk in every human activity including the enjoyment of alcoholic beverages and even the simple act of eating." Here are some more examples of fascism being unhealthier than smoking. - In Omaha Nebraska, city police are encouraging residents to call 911 if they see a smoker in a non-smoking area. So when your wife is being raped by an illegal immigrant or a gang banger, be assured that the cops have a good reason for their absence - Joe Bloggs just lit up a Marlboro and he's going to get Tasered. - Bangor City Council approved a measure that criminalizes smoking in your own car with a child present. - In Okemos Michigan, an insurance business boss ordered all his employees to take urine tests to determine if they had smoked, even in their own homes. Smokers were warned that they would be fired. - In New York, Mayor Bloomberg's tobacco stormtroopers raided the offices of Vanity Fair no less than three times, attempting to catch noted journalist Graydon Carter smoking. All they found was an unused clean ash tray but Carter was fined and given a warning nonetheless. Numerous other instances of infamous "ash tray raids" have occurred in New York City. - In Scotland, social services are drawing up a master list of smokers and warning residents against smoking in their own homes unless they wish to risk being cut off from government services. Many of the people reading this will have had relatives die directly due to smoking. I am not advocating smoking, I am simply advocating the fact that I'd rather live in a society of smokers than a society of control freak fascists who slavishly seize upon any action of the individual in order to create yet another pretext for creating a Stasi system of informants, locking us all up and building the infrastructure of the prison planet. 
|
|
06-27-2007, 01:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45
Robert N Proctor 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. Medical historians in recent years have done a great deal to enlarge our understanding of medicine and public health in Nazi Germany. We know that about half of all doctors joined the Nazi party and that doctors played a major part in designing and administering the Nazi programmes of forcible sterilisation, "euthanasia," and the industrial scale murder of Jews and gypsies.(1) (2) Much of our present day concern for the abuse of humans used in experiments stems from the extreme brutality many German doctors showed towards concentration camp prisoners exploited to advance the cause of German military medicine.(3) Tobacco in the Reich One topic that has only recently begun to attract attention is the Nazi anti-tobacco movement.(4-6) Germany had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,supported by Nazi medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the race.(1) (4)Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking. Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major fascist leaders of Europe-Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco-were all non-smokers.(7) Hitler was the most adamant,characterising tobacco as "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor." At one point the Fuhrer even suggested that Nazism might never have triumphed in Germany had he not given up smoking.(8) German smoking rates rose dramatically in the first six years of Nazi rule, suggesting that the propaganda campaign launched during those early years was largely ineffective.(4) (5) German smoking rates rose faster even than those of France, which had a much weaker anti-tobacco campaign. German per capita tobacco use between 1932 and 1939 rose from 570 to 900 cigarettes a year, whereas French tobacco consumption grew from 570 to only 630 cigarettes over the same period.(9) Smith et al suggested that smoking may have functioned as a kind of cultural resistance,(4) though it is also important to realise that German tobacco companies exercised a great deal of economic and political power, as they do today. German anti-tobacco activists frequently complained that their efforts were no match for the "American style" advertising campaigns waged by the tobacco industry.(10) German cigarette manufacturers neutralised early criticism-for example, from the SA(Sturm-Abteilung; stormtroops), which manufactured its own"Sturmzigaretten"-by portraying themselves as early and eager supporters of the regime.(11) The tobacco industry also launched several new journals aimed at countering anti-tobacco propaganda. In a pattern that would become familiar in the United States and elsewhere after the second world war, several of these journals tried to dismiss the anti-tobacco movement as "fanatic"and "unscientific." One such journal featured the German word for science twice in its title (Der Tabak: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der International en Tabakwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft, founded in 1940). We should also realise that tobacco provided an important source of revenue for the national treasury. In 1937-8 German national income from tobacco taxes and tariffs exceeded 1 billion Reichsmarks.(12) By 1941, as a result of new taxes and the annexation of Austria and Bohemia, Germans were paying nearly twice that. According to Germany's national accounting office, by 1941 tobacco taxes constituted about one twelfth of the government's entire income.(13) Two hundred thousand Germans were said to owe their livelihood to tobacco-an argument that was reversed by those who pointed to Germany's need for additional men in its labour force, men who could presumably be supplied from the tobacco industry.(14) 'Tobacco capital' raining down to spoil the people's health.  Culmination of the campaign: 1939-41 German anti-tobacco policies accelerated towards the end of the 1930s,and by the early war years tobacco use had begun to decline. The Luftwaffe banned smoking in 1938 and the post office did likewise.Smoking was barred in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals,and rest homes. The NSDAP (National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) announced a ban on smoking in its offices in 1939, at which time SS chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all uniformed police and SS officers while on duty.(15) The Journal of the American Medical Association that year reported Hermann Goering's decree barring soldiers from smoking on the streets, on marches, and on brief off duty periods.(16) Sixty of Germany's largest cities banned smoking on street cars in 1941.(17) Smoking was banned in air raid shelters-though some shelters reserved separate rooms for smokers.(18) During the war years tobacco rationing coupons were denied to pregnant women (and to all women below the age of 25) while restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to female customers.(19) From July 1943 it was illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to smoke in public.(20) Smoking was banned on all German city trains and buses in 1944, the initiative coming from Hitler himself,who was worried about exposure of young female conductors to tobacco smoke.(21) Nazi policies were heralded as marking"the beginning of the end" of tobacco use in Germany.(14) Cover page from Reine Luft, the main journal of the German anti-tobacco movement German tobacco epidemiology by this time was the most advanced in the world. Franz H Muller in 1939 and Eberhard Schairer and Erich Schoniger in 1943 were the first to use case-control epidemiological methods to document the lung cancer hazard from cigarettes.(22) (23) Muller concluded that the "extraordinary rise in tobacco use" was "the single most important cause of the rising incidence of lung cancer."(22) Heart disease was another focus and was not infrequently said to be the most serious illness brought on by smoking.(24) Late in the war nicotine was suspected as a cause of the coronary heart failure suffered by a surprising number of soldiers on the eastern front. A 1944 report by an army field pathologist found that all 32 young soldiers whom he had examined after death from heart attack on the front had been "enthusiastic smokers." The author cited the Freiburg pathologist Franz Buchner's view that cigarettes should be considered "a coronary poison of the first order."(25) 'Our Fuhrer Adolf Hitler drinks no alcohol and does not smoke...His performance at work is incredible...(from Auf der Wacht, 1937)  On 20 June 1940 Hitler ordered tobacco rations to be distributed to the military "in a manner that would dissuade" soldiers from smoking.(24) Cigarette rations were limited to six per man per day, with alternative rations available for non-smokers(for example, chocolate or extra food). Extra cigarettes were sometimes available for purchase, but these were generally limited to 50 per man per month and were often unavailable-as during times of rapid advance or retreat. Tobacco rations were denied to women accompanying the Wehrmacht. An ordinance on 3 November 1941 raised tobacco taxes to a higher level than they had ever been (80-95% of the retail price).Tobacco taxes would not rise that high again for more than a quarter of a century after Hitler's defeat.(26) Impact of the war and postwar poverty The net effect of these and other measures (for instance, medical lectures to discourage soldiers from smoking) was to lower tobacco consumption by the military during the war years. A 1944 survey of 1000 servicemen found that, whereas the proportion of soldiers smoking had increased (only 12.7% were non-smokers), the total consumption of tobacco had decreased-by just over 14%. More men were smoking (101 of those surveyed had taken up the habit during the war, whereas only seven had given it up) but the average soldier was smoking about a quarter (23.4%) less tobacco than in the immediate prewar period. The number of very heavy smokers (30 or more cigarettes daily) was down dramatically-from 4.4% to only 0.3%-and similar declines were recorded for moderately heavy smokers.(24) German cigarette consumption in 1940-1. Germans smoked 75 billion cigarettes, or enough to form a cylindrical block 436 metres high with a base of 1000 square metres. (From Reine Luft.)  Postwar poverty further cut consumption. According to official statistics German tobacco use did not reach prewar levels again until the mid-1950s. The collapse was dramatic: German per capita consumption dropped by more than half from 1940 to 1950, whereas American consumption nearly doubled during that period.(6) (9) French consumption also rose, though during the four years of German occupation cigarette consumption declined by even more than in Germany(9)-suggesting that military conquest had a larger effect than Nazi propaganda. After the war Germany lost its position as home to the world's most aggressive anti-tobacco science. Hitler was dead but also many of his anti-tobacco underlings either had lost their jobs or were otherwise silenced. Karl Aster, head of Jena's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research (and rector of the University of Jena and an officer in the SS), committed suicide in his office on the night of 3-4 April 1945.Reich Health Fuhrer Leonardo Conti, another anti-tobacco activist,committed suicide on 6 October 1945 in an allied prison while awaiting prosecution for his role in the euthanasia programme. Hans Reiter, the Reich Health Office president who once characterised nicotine as "the greatest enemy of the people's health" and "the number one drag on the German economy"(27) was interned in an American prison camp for two years, after which he worked as a physician in a clinic in Kassel, never again returning to public service. Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, 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. The chain smoker: 'You don't smoke it Ç it smokes you!" (from Reine Luft, 1941)  The flip side of Fascism Smith et al were correct to emphasise the strength of the Nazi anti smoking effort and the sophistication of Nazi era tobacco science.(4) The anti smoking science and policies of the era have not attracted much attention, possibly because the impulse behind the movement was closely attached to the larger Nazi movement.That does not mean, however, that anti smoking movements are inherently fascist(28); it means simply that scientific memories are often clouded by the celebrations of victors and that the political history of science is occasionally less pleasant than we would wish. Last edited by POWERJIM; 06-27-2007 at 01:22 AM.
|
|
06-27-2007, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Today's Anti-Smoking Purge Is Borrowed From The Nazis
Smoking is healthier than fascism Paul Joseph Watson A wealth of overlooked yet frightening literature concerning the Nazi crusade against smoking provides a clear parallel to contemporary developments and an alarming warning that state restriction of personal habits is the pre-cursor to dictatorship. Beginning in the early 1930's, as part of the Nazi agenda for racial purity, Hitler spearheaded a national campaign to ban smoking in all public buildings, and denounced the practice as a betrayal of the fascist drive for bodily purity. "Brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?" stated one magazine. As I wrote earlier this year , "The regulation of the personal habit of smoking, including new legislative moves in San Francisco to ban cigarettes in private homes, and its enforcement by an eager cadre of state snoops and snitches, represents nothing more than a move on behalf of big brother towards the complete subjugation and shackling of the individual." Read these shocking parallels and compare them to the endless lecturing we are forced to endure today about our personal lifestyle choices by the state and their propaganda arm, the mass media. Nazi anti-smoking propaganda poster.  - The Nazis banned tobacco advertising and financed huge public relations campaigns to propagandize people into giving up smoking. - The Nazis banned smoking in government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces, and Hitler gave awards to associates who quit the habit. - A ban on smoking in private vehicles was called for. - The Nazi Reich Health Office warned that smoking caused impotence and produced posters depicting smoking as a dirty habit of Jews, Gypsies, blacks, intellectuals and Indians. - Nazi lobbyists lectured terrified children in schools on the horrors of racial impurity as a result of smoking. - The term "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined by the Nazi Anti-Tobacco League. Its author, Fritz Lickint, offered no supporting evidence to claim that smokers poisoned everyone around them, while also stating that drinking coffee caused cancer. - Hitler was an ardent vegetarian and did not smoke or drink after the age of 30, even accrediting the rise of fascism to his success in kicking the habit. He forbade anyone from smoking in a room he might enter. Fellow fascist leaders Mussolini, Napoleon and Franco also detested smoking. - The Nazi anti-smoking crusade was unleashed with the help of manufactured junk science on behalf of the medical and health establishment, one such example being that smoking caused "spontaneous abortions" in pregnant women. - Hitler attempted to price out smoking for Germans, levying huge taxes on cigarettes. - Despite the Nazi propaganda crusade against smoking, tobacco sales increased in Germany, leading some history professors to hypothesize that smoking was an act of cultural resistance against fascism, until the late 1930's after smoking was banned in most public buildings and tobacco sales rapidly declined. Another Nazi anti-smoking propaganda poster depicts a jackboot kicking a cigarette, a cigar and a pipe.  What conclusions can we draw from these parallels? Either the Nazis were benign really cared about everyone's health or they used the specter of anti-smoking to exert massive control over people's lives and scale back basic freedoms, getting a foot in the door for the political dictatorship that was to follow. Similarly today, either the same elite that advocate "mass culling" of the majority of the world's population really do care about public health and well-being or they are using the excuse of the anti-smoking drive to condition us to accept state regulation over every aspect of our personal lives. It's all about control, it's all about letting you know who the bosses are. If the government can regulate personal habits and behavior, what's next? If the state is so concerned about our good health as they would have you believe, why not use the latest scientific advancements to remove that nasty aggressive gene that causes so much unhappiness? Well, you're causing those around you distress and harming their health so why not? Are your political opinions a mental illness? Are they harming society? Perhaps we should ban certain types of "free" speech that is offensive to others. You see where this is all heading - how long before our wall mounted personal x-ray body scanners are accompanied by special smoke detectors that inform on you to the local Stasi if you dare to light up? We live in a paranoid world overpopulated by ninnying jellyfish who dare not dip their toe in the water in case there's a law against it, it might upset someone, or it might be bad for their health. Many people will read this article having lost loved ones as a result of smoking. Please don't have a knee jerk emotional reaction, try to understand that the point I'm making - smoking is unhealthy but it is healthier than fascism and government regulation of personal habits leads to dictatorship. The fact that the very language and policies that we are now bombarded with as a justification for state regulation of our personal lifestyle choices are directly lifted from Nazi policies for racial hygiene from the 1930's should alarm us all and act as a wake up call to the true agenda behind today's anti-smoking purge.
|
|
06-27-2007, 12:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If someone wants to smoke in their on home and it's against the law, well we might as well all get ready for what the Nazi's did with Germany.
1st they came for me, next they come for you - THIS IS INSANE Not that I condone smoking cigs, I dont, but I condone FREEDOM and the right to live and die FREE.
|
|
06-27-2007, 12:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
So in other words, crack, pcp, nuclear waste, whatever should be legal and accessible by anyone. Thats ubsurd. Isnt cigarettes something like the leading cause of cancer and death in the world? You dont even have to think about it to realize what a horrible product this is. If they outlawed them, many many people would LIVE, and their family members wouldnt suffer through the torment of watching them slowly die. Insurance rates would drop, and health insurance might be a little more afordable.
Tell me again what the pros are for cigarettes verses the cons? lol, there are none.
__________________
Founder of F.A. (Fatceps Anonymous)
|
|
06-27-2007, 01:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It should be their choice thats all I am saying. You said, "If they outlawed them, many many people would LIVE" Well what if they applied that same thing to having a motorcycle, or riding a skateboard ....or mountain climbing, what if they outlawed the people who want to go to Everest every year???? I think it's insane for someone to want to attempt to reach the summit of Everest, but if they want to try let them do it, they may die and it will be no ones fault but their own. I dont think cigs should be outlawed. I do like the rules for smoking in public places though as I dont want to have to inhale their nasty ass second hand smoke. Traps, you yourself showed concern about the FDA and the new laws with supps and how the Gov't has more control, etc..etc.. This is the same example of what you speak of. 1st will cigarette smoking Next will be extreme sports Then there will be no guns Followed by not being allowed to drive on the freeway Soon you will be confined to your own home and wont be able to come out unless you have a permit The end result might be the infamous smoke coming from the smoke stacks of the incinerators Scary sh!t if you ask me Last edited by BiggerGuns=LongerDrives; 06-27-2007 at 01:23 PM.
|
|
06-27-2007, 04:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
My response.
Quote:
__________________
Founder of F.A. (Fatceps Anonymous)
|
|
06-27-2007, 06:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The logic is the same.
Keep in mind my sarcasm is to point out the pure craziness, I'm not being a smartass here * Drinking alcohol kills millions every year so should alcohol be banned? * Guns kill a ton of people every year, should guns be banned? * Maybe we should outlaw high fructose corn syrup? * NSAIDS can cause stomach ulcers, should we ban Ibuprofen? * Going to an ATM machine at 2 in the morning is not safe, should that be denied? Some may sound silly, but we are talking about control here. If you want the government to control it's society, then a comunistic country will suit your liking far more! As for myself, I realize freedom is what built America and more and more everyday, it's being taken away here and there. If my neighbor wants to step outside every night for a smoke I dont give a damn . Last edited by BiggerGuns=LongerDrives; 06-27-2007 at 06:15 PM.
|
|
06-27-2007, 06:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, we can't have total freedom, lines have to be drawn. So what is the difference between cigarette smoking being made illegal and everything else staying the same, or them legalizing automatic weapons for civilians.
I mean, why is it ok to control steroids but not cigarettes. Using common sense, the better one to control would be cigarettes, seeing as they are much more dangerous. So at what point does the government intervening become too much. I think it would be great if cigarettes were made illegal. Will it ever happen? NOT A CHANCE. Too much money, to many powerful people, but why is it ok to regulate steroids but not to regulate smoking more. So i get to go out for a walk and smell butt nasty cigarette smoke everywhere i go, i am free, my choice is to avoid cigarettes, but the general population wont let me do that. I want my freedom of choice to be protected as well.
__________________
Squat - 405 Deadlift - 510 Bench - 315 Total - 1230
|
|
06-27-2007, 06:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I could care less if some clown wants to kill himself in his own house, but when that same clown decides to light up and endanger the health of me and my kids, f*ck their rights.
Ohio banned smoking in public places - hell yes.
__________________
The Resident Training Log Ballbuster.
|
|
06-27-2007, 07:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Again, your rationality poses no bounderies, and none of your examples come close to the reality of cigarette smoking.
__________________
Founder of F.A. (Fatceps Anonymous)
|
