I have been the FORCES Chief Executive Officer for a long time, but in this piece I do not speak as such. In fact, I submit this piece to my friends of Freedom To Choose to underline the fact that I speak on my own as an individual, and not on behalf of my organization....
The inspiration for the considerations that follow comes from this article of The Telegraph by the title: “Have you been defying the smoking ban?
” The piece ends with an important question: “With thousands still smoking in pubs, is a soft approach to the ban's enforcement ever going to work?”
I don’t believe that the soft approach is going to work. In fact, it will not
work. As in almost every country in the world, the smoking ban is NOT popular and it is NOT welcome. What you hear is sheer propaganda. In spite of the one-sided reporting of the mass-media, most people are actually indifferent to smoking – and that means that they do not mind
smoking locales. It also means that, in a free market and in a nation that is not infected with healthism, the vast majority of places – private or public – allow smoking as they have always done.
I always considered England an important and an especially symbolic nation because it stood so valiantly against the Nazis. Its Queen has liberty at heart today – and she certainly does not seem to like the new Nazis who have grown inside her country – the health Nazis, that is. Long live this Queen.
So, as the soft approach will not work, a hard approach is inevitable when smokers show that they have a “pair”.
If I understand correctly, antismoking chief Stanton Glantz, from the Unites States
is advising (actually directing) the British antismoking pharma-minions to quickly suppress disobedience of the fraudulent law before the issue becomes political
. I have no respect for Stanton Glantz and especially what he stands for: prohibition based on hatred and on epidemiological fraud. But he is certainly no fool. He KNOWS that the entire antismoking manoeuvre is purely political and has nothing to do with real public health but with pharma-political control. Were English smokers to successfully rebel and the unfair law merely amended in response, the symbolic value of England doing this would set off a cascade effect throughout the world, as smokers would realize their political power. And that would effectively nullify hundreds of millions of dollars of pharmaceutical investment, lobbying and cultural engineering. Glantz, a man at the head of a gang that has received – amongst many other grants – 10 million dollars from Big Pharma
to suppress, amongst other liberties, smoking in the movies (and the freedom of expression that comes with that) must be aware of all this.
As the issue is purely political, British “public health” believes it must show smokers who is in command
of society, and in the case of England that becomes particularly important. So, the authorities will come down on defiant smokers and the pubs that support them like a ton of bricks. This is going to be hard and it’s going be happening very soon. People like Glantz and the medical pharma gangs don’t like to be kept waiting. They want results, and they want them NOW.
If defiant smokers and pubs think that they are going to win this one with petitions and mumbling, they are very much mistaken. Speaking as an expert on this phenomenon, I am convinced that even if 99% of the British population were against the smoking ban (but did nothing about it except mumble), the prohibition would be imposed anyway by a handful of well-positioned and corrupt bureaucrats and antismoking activists. Pharmaceutical multinationals would not
certainly give up just because of the will of the people.
So, smokers and liberty-loving pubs have a choice to make. As the stakes will certainly be raised, they either obey and submit
or be prepared to go all the way
, ignoring a mass media determined to show them that their fight is futile and that the “majority overwhelmingly supports” the smoking ban. What do I mean by “all the way”? I mean continue to defy the law. I mean NEVER patronize locales that obey that law. I mean make the life of antismokers everywhere as miserable as they try to make yours: remember that this is a war, not a debate. “The debate is over”. Antismokers said so. Let’s take them seriously. That means being prepared for group protest actions in large numbers – peacefully invading City Hall and lighting up, for example, then waiting for the police to come to drag people away like sacks of potatoes. Remember the 1960s? Actions, in other words, undertaken in such a way that the mass media can neither ignore nor underplay them. And, finally, be prepared to sustain your actions indefinitely and in spite of all the efforts to break you.
The dangers of passive smoke (and its claimed victims) are a fraud
that is easily demonstrable in any court of law. So the aim is to make prohibition factual without ever testing in court the basic scientific fraud upon which the ban rests. Therefore it is clear that we are talking about sheer political
power exerted directly on people through an institution that is (unfortunately) not at all perceived as a political animal: public health
. The ways of stealthy totalitarianism are multiple and subtle.
I am not just trying to be a backseat driver. Were I to see a serious political rebellion and demonstrations in England, I would jump on a plane and stand side by side with my smoking British brothers and hopefully be arrested for doing so. Indeed, ending up in jail in the fight against the Fraud of the Century and against corrupt institutions would be such a badge of honour for me, I would display it with annoying pride at each and every opportunity for the rest of my life.
Arrested for smoking
. It was said as a joke 30 years ago, I remember that well. Today the prospect has become a reality to fear. If we are successful in turning back the tide of bad faith and coercion, tomorrow we may be able to say as a source of nostalgic pride, I was arrested for smoking, and I helped to win the war.
-- Gian Turci