| |
|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by Cantiloper
on Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:33 pm |
|
Pete Gatti wrote, "Thanks for your reply Michael. So basically your book outlines the degrees to which anti-smokes are freakin' nut cases."
Just the first 50 pages. :) While that analysis was the acorn that started Brains, most of it was eventually devoted to analysis of the Antismokers' tricks and techniques and to the deceptions used in their science.
:)
MJM |
|
|
Cantiloper
Puffer
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 51
Location: Philadelphia
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by jsidney
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 1:50 am |
|
In regard to playing the "Hitler card", I found a link to this informative chart recently (probably from one of Dr. Siegal's commenters).
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/voices/info/decrees/decrees.html
"Anti-Jewish decrees: The persecution of the Jews began systematically almost as soon as Hitler came to power. The Nazis established many new anti-Jewish laws. These were introduced slowly at first, so that the civilian population would not realize the extent of the Nazi party's anti-Semitism. Below is a chart showing a small selection of the 2,000 Nazi anti-Jewish decrees passed between 1933-1945 ..."
Among the decrees listed please note some similar to those enacted or proposed against smokers today:
1934: Jews excluded from military service
1935-36: Benefit payments to large Jewish families stopped
1935-36: Jews banned from parks restaurants and swimming pools
1938: Jews excluded from cinema, theatre, concerts, exhibitions, beaches and holiday resorts
1939: Jews evicted from their homes without reason and notice
Now compare this:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1712230/congress_should_take_stronger_steps_toward_eliminating_tobacco_use_in
"...That ban could eventually be extended to all new enlistees, who would be informed during recruitment tht they would be expected to remain tobacco-free during their entire military careers."
And this: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=51093
"Tobacco Use - Not Promiscuity or Drug Abuse - Will Be Only Vice Legally Punishable by Higher Insurance Premiums Under Senate Health Care Bill"
"The summary of the bill specifically states that premiums may be varied to account for tobacco use, but any other use of a person's record of insurance claims, health status or medical history will be forbidden." |
|
|
jsidney
Toker
Joined: Jun 07, 2007
Posts: 86
Location: California
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by activist0000
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:27 am |
|
jsidney wrote: And this: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=51093
"Tobacco Use - Not Promiscuity or Drug Abuse - Will Be Only Vice Legally Punishable by Higher Insurance Premiums Under Senate Health Care Bill"
"The summary of the bill specifically states that premiums may be varied to account for tobacco use, but any other use of a person's record of insurance claims, health status or medical history will be forbidden."
I'm sure some people won't like using the word "addiction" here, but there is no way to get any legal protection without using that word.
By now, everyone assumes that degrading smokers has to be part of any health plan, even if no other groups are mentioned. In fact, if anyone tried to pass a bill that failed to openly degrade smokers, people would clamor to include smoker degradation just to make the bill "seem right."
Like rats conditioned to run a maze to get the piece of cheese at the end, well-conditioned sheeple see an opportunity to reinforce the public credo of smoker abuse, bleet out their obligatory public scorn, and then wait for a few sugar cubes to be tossed their way by John Q. Public. I'm convinced that smoker abuse is now a conditioned behavior and will persist long after any justification for it has vanished.
This little story illustrates the phenomenon I am talking about:
http://www.wisehat.com/resources/stories/thecage.php |
|
|
activist0000
Toker
Joined: May 26, 2009
Posts: 86
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Cantiloper
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 11:49 am |
|
Activist wrote, "Still, if you classify smoking as an addiction, and group all addictions with potential health consequences together, then you have a situation where the rule is not being applied equally to everyone within the health category of "people with addictions." "
Unfortunately I think we passed that bump in the road a long while ago. I'm pretty sure that the Antismokers have already managed a number of instances of laws and such where smoking has been specifically excluded as an "addiction" to be treated for coverage of various types or protection of various types as are afforded to "other addictions."
It's the same sort of doublethink we see when they'll triple the tax on cigarettes to wipe out the addiction while at the same time saying, "It's not really a tax. People can just choose not to smoke."
Regarding the military ban, I've been posting variations of the following around the net:
===
Dear Editor, Military Intelligence Up In Smoke...
The latest on this now from one official is that "The military could end tobacco use within 20 years by gradually refusing entry to users,"
Brilliant idea. Truly brilliant. A perfect example of the kind of thinking that goes into smoking bans.
Thirty-five years ago you had college students deliberately getting arrested for smoking marijuana in order to avoid the draft. So now we're going to have a situation where the US gets into some really nasty war, maybe in someplace like Iran or Korea on top of what we've already got....
... and students will take up smoking tobacco in droves to duck out of the draft.
Truly scathingly brilliant. Ranks right up there with the Lung Association telling families not to send the troops tobacco products even if they ask for them because they "should be sent care packages that don't kill." Sheeesh!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" |
|
|
Cantiloper
Puffer
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 51
Location: Philadelphia
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by garhkal
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:50 pm |
|
activist0000 wrote: jsidney wrote: And this: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=51093
"Tobacco Use - Not Promiscuity or Drug Abuse - Will Be Only Vice Legally Punishable by Higher Insurance Premiums Under Senate Health Care Bill"
"The summary of the bill specifically states that premiums may be varied to account for tobacco use, but any other use of a person's record of insurance claims, health status or medical history will be forbidden." It looks like that rule could be challenged based on the fact that they are singling out one addiction for financial punishment while ignoring other addictions, such as alcoholism, which damages just about every bodily organ and eventually causes death from cirrhosis.
What about all the deaths each year from DUI?
Quote:
... and students will take up smoking tobacco in droves to duck out of the draft.
With their hard issues of keeping people in as is, as well as the numbers of new enlistee's barely being hit for some years now, i can easily see that. Hell, based on my view of military people, they would lose a good 25-35%... |
|
|
garhkal
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 24, 2009
Posts: 278
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by seabooty
on Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:59 pm |
|
Your best bet is to send this to Fox news. |
|
|
seabooty
Puffer
Joined: May 19, 2009
Posts: 43
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Pete Gatti
on Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:19 am |
|
Cantiloper wrote:
Just the first 50 pages.  While that analysis was the acorn that started Brains, most of it was eventually devoted to analysis of the Antismokers' tricks and techniques and to the deceptions used in their science.
MJM
Thanks, I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't appreciate the work you've done. Your book is sorely needed as a tool for deprogramming the public of anti-smoking propaganda. That's not an easy nut to crack. |
|
|
Pete Gatti
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 26, 2009
Posts: 222
Location: Dade City, Florida
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
