Thursday, April 10, 2008

What are they scared of?

It seems that the health fanatics are not satisfied with controlling the media and the public sector. When it comes to the fight against recalcitrant smokers they will resort to any means necessary. This is a press release I received this morning. And no, you will not read it in your daily paper.

Hackers Target Freedom Organisations
The websites of two prominent pro choice organisations campaigning against smoking bans were yesterday targeted by hackers in a "pharming" incident that redirected traffic to the NHS Smokefree website. The DNS poisoning, a high level and sophisticated hacking technique, affected all UK based internet service providers.

Andy Davis, Vice Chairman of Freedom to Choose, one of the affected websites, says: "It appears that Freedom To Choose has annoyed someone high up, it seems they don't want the truth to get out."

Stephanie Stahl, President of Forces International, claims: "To re-direct our UK visitors to an anti-smoking website shows that the antismoking movement must be very nervous about the information our pro-freedom groups provide.

Domain names are sacred on the free-spirited information super highway; we trust that those responsible for this serious violation will be identified and held accountable. "

Both groups campaign against government interference in private life and property, maintaining that blanket smoking bans are based on fraudulent scientific claims about passive smoking. According to Andy Davis: "5 out of 6 studies show second hand smoke to be entirely harmless. In the UK the ban is needlessly devastating the hospitality and entertainment industries, yet modern air filtration can remove 9.97% of airborne particles and make indoor air cleaner than outdoor, regardless of smoking."

The hacking incident has been reported to the relevant authorities and is under investigation.

Of course this could be the work of a concerned citizen. But are you sure?


Anonymous said...

Dear Editor, April 10/08

If you ask most people, they'd tell you they're not big fans of hypocrisy and political correctness.
So how is it that journalists, of all people, can fall prey to those two nasty traits?
For the last couple of weeks, board members of a national journalism association have engaged in some heated discussion over an advertisement a lobby group wanted to place in Media magazine.
That's the publication for the Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ). I'm one of 13 people on the CAJ's national board.
Normally, we see eye-to-eye on motherhood issues, including freedom of speech, fairness from bias, truth, accuracy ...
But when a pro-smoking group called Tobacco Smokers of Canada wanted to advertise in our national magazine, all bets were off. I've learned one lesson: Where there's smoke, there's ire.
In a display of hypocrisy and political correctness, our magazine publisher turned the group down flat, claiming the ad violates Canada's Tobacco Act. Most all board members agreed with the decision.
No lawyer was called for a legal opinion, I'm told.
In my view and the view of an Ottawa consultant intimately familiar with the Tobacco Act, the ad is perfectly legal, especially since the magazine is targeted only at people over the age of 18.
Political correctness and hypocrisy were behind the decision, not rule of law.
Judge the ad for yourself:
"Dear News Industry: The opposing side of the tobacco smoke issue is not being reported. Many researchers, scientists, even doctors and politicians, as well as millions of news reading, taxpaying voters, do not believe the anti-smoking claims about second-hand tobacco smoke.
"We tobacco smokers appeal to you all. Please, also report our side of the tobacco smoking issue in accordance with the principles and ethics of journalism and the news industry's fiduciary duty to the public."
The group then rubbed a little salt in the wound by quoting, in the ad, the CAJ's principles and ethics guidelines that include the defence of free speech and the belief in allowing "disparate and conflicting views."
Clearly, the ad is not advertising tobacco and the smoking group had a right to its opinion.
That seemed lost on most CAJ board members.
Some said we'd have to investigate the group's claims and delve into the studies disputing the extent of harm caused by second-hand smoke.
Others figured the group spokesman should write a column, not buy an ad.
When I asked one board member if they would grill every potential advertiser on the facts of every ad submitted, I received this response: "Yes, every time someone wants to place an ad dealing with any product proven to kill people I would definitely ask these kinds of questions."
lt's obvious from that some people just have blinders on when it comes to the topic of tobacco, which is, last I checked, a legal product in Canada.
A major study published in the British Medical Journal backs up the group's view that second-hand smoke is not as deadly as most anti-smoking activists claim.
In that study, more than 118,000 adults were monitored for almost four decades. Essentially, it found that people exposed to a life of second-hand smoke were about as healthy as those who weren't.
It concluded: "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect."
It's tragic when political correctness trumps freedom of speech.

Anonymous said...

Is the World health Organization through HIA Industry partnerships, loaning its stamp of approval to cruelty and intolerance? There are consequences to consider, not the least of which is the fact Philip Morris stock values have tripled in the past eight years as a direct result of a huge shift in responsibilities.

Anti smoking, Anti fat and Anti alcohol in their current renditions are progressing perilously close to the anti witch movement in Salem. One has to keep in mind Hitler was a staunch paternalist with all the deceptive packaging removed, and what that popular attitude empowered in what he would eventually do. I repeat; there are consequences to consider, not the least of which is the fact Philip Morris stock values have tripled in the past eight years as a direct result of a huge shift in responsibilities.

We often hear the phrases "measures which reduce tobacco use", “Those who wish to harm children” and “defenders of the Tobacco industry” as empowerment spin to legitimize smoking bans, all in a stated effort to “Help smokers to quit”

It is highly offensive and blatantly opportunistic to state; anyone who wishes to defend their own freedom. or in fact defending their own personal economy, by challenging the efforts of Paternalist Lobby groups, to inflate the value and cost of a product they know a smoker will use every day, Is a promoter of the Tobacco industry, who are doing quite well by their silence, considering.

If the truth is recognized Public Health is actually the true defender of the Tobacco Industry’s interests.
They have;
-Reduced the costs of advertising and research,
- Reduced the cost of the raw tobacco through "no safe cigarette" campaigns.
-Eliminated the costs of litigation and all responsibility.
-Increased the value of the product through deals like the MSA agreement.
-Surrendered them stability long term; in both market share and cash flow analysis.

Most significantly they have shifted the blame for costs to society associated to smoking, from the industry to the consumer, who gets to not only pay double those claimed costs, but gets to wear the Yellow Star in community perspectives, as a result of what appear to be Public Health efforts to defend Tobacco Industry interests.

All the while violent confrontations which were once rare, in resolving disputes concerning smoking are increasing, at an alarming rate within communities.

As for the statement "measures which reduce tobacco use"; in theory the denormalizing strategies of making smokers “not normal”, might be believed to reduce tobacco use, however even a short term analysis indicates this has not been the case. The recent and as yet unexplained increases we see in young people starting to smoke is alarming. Public Health statements in the media grow more outrageous and demanding by the day, eventually [if not already] young people will be starting to smoke, just to spite the anti freedom attitude associated with these regressive and paternalistic campaigns. Just like the last time prohibition was deemed a noble human experiment.

Can anyone imagine the coercive value of a single cigarette for those confined inside a prison or a mental institution, where smoking is banned? What consequences from human rights violations in torturing prisoners, will we all have to bear eventually?

If tobacco “medical dependency” or “addiction” is a reality, it constitutes a disability. Dehumanization through public health is then, actually seen as a criminal act, which is an activity which could eventually require punishment, at a huge cost to society when compensation is eventually assessed and paid.

How does anyone moralize punishing an addiction, in order to force compliance to a "prohibitionist normality"?

"Helping someone to quit" is nothing more than a convenient lie, to quell the discomfort of conscience. Medical treatments which demand punishment, are not "tough love” or in any way justifiable, they are simply the stepping stones to legitimize the intolerant few among us.

Those very individuals who society used to believe were “not normal"

We can't blame the media entirely, when someone announces a long term education program to purchase hundreds of millions in advertising to warn of the "dangers of second hand smoke" in order to put a lot of pressure on smokers to "help them to quit". Ad agencies would understandably be quite enthused in competing for those large advertising contracts and want to put their best opinions forward, to suit the needs of the client.

What is truly alarming is the fact the increased violence, which is resulting from smokers wearing the Yellow Star of de-normalization, is being played down in the media, apparently in order to keep the monetary drive alive.

"Erosion of Civil Liberties is the genesis of Genocide."

Elizabeth Kirkley Best PHD; Et Al Author of the Shoa education project.