Send letter to journal:
Re: Scientific buffoonery

It would have to be seen as the most intriguing question of our era; to understand how, with all the most educated of scholarly voices abdicating for world wide smoking bans, how not one of those participants has the vision to see outside the box. To understand with very little imagination how beneficial it could be to society as a whole to simply look at the product before punishing it’s victims. When we view tobacco as one of the most dangerous products on the shelf, does it make sense to anyone it is also the only product on the shelf with no list of ingredients. While we are well informed as to the contents of, the smoke it could produce, it is downplayed how significantly the quantities present, individually or as a whole, represent a substantial risk. It is indisputable, the lack of ingredients list can be directly associated to the potential harm. If we look at what is revealed it is also indisputable many of the toxins and carcinogens could not be derived from the burning of Tobacco alone. The scientific community as a whole can still err in the description of the product as tobacco, either through lack of proper information or as a deliberate act to substantiate political will. Either excuse adds to the misinformation being supplied to the public with a scientific community rubber stamp of approval, contrary to well- established rules of informed consent. Human rights are no longer a priority in fact are being deliberately ignored in seek of the greater good. A major mistake, one which one-day, will greatly expand the list of names attributed to the Darwin awards. The danger is, the words scientific integrity could also be included on that list of casualties.

Simplistic regulation barring the use of known dangerous ingredients would reduce the harm of the product in its use. If as advocacy would proclaim the protection of health is the purpose for anti smoker advocacy perhaps the mortality figures stated as preventable could be greatly reduced by regulating the products. Of course, this would result in a decreased risk to non-smokers and the most efficient means of solving the problem at hand. Perhaps advocacy would be less effective if the numbers were reduced and we could deal with a more significant problem of violence and impunity, which is the most prominent effect of anti smoker advocacy.

The alternative is relying on case research studies investigating the effects of a range, of millions of possible combinations in the products being consumed. Predictably, we see a wide range of determined theoretic results of little scientific value. Further confusion added by the absolutes of smoking debates resulting in biases which undermine the credibility of any research study, with the current indicator being, who paid for the study as a judgment of integrity. No matter how much care and integrity was incorporated by the researcher, his absolute credibility will be determined by who pays the bill.

Is this the best we have to offer in the realm of scientific discovery? Facts by consensus and that consensus determined by the size of our gang, our ability to create facts or having the finances to establish those facts in the media and through that a silencing of all opposition. Public confidence in the process is understandably reserved to say the least.

It was revealed to me today the president of mychoice.ca in Canada was threatened with death on her doorstep for nothing more than a perceived threat she represents, as a non-smoker advocating for nothing more than respect of her neighbors in community. She has never stated smoking is not dangerous and has consistently stated it is, in every public discussion. She was once given an award by her peers speaking out on the topic of violence against women. Now she is disassociated from integrity in her opinion, in advocacy against the same topic, Hatred and Violence. Where are the advocates rushing to her aid and praise this time around? Have our values now changed so absolutely it is permissible to excuse the abuse of others as long as we can create a good enough reason? Not original in fact in 1930s Germany those same assessments were made Praised and encouraged internationally, using the smoking issue as a wedge to join the parties in health advocacy lobbying, we know how that turned out, how soon we did forget. On the other hand, perhaps we are smarter now and are assured the results will be different. Consistent with the insanity theory of repetitive actions expecting a different result. Lunacy? I would say so.

Are we so bent we cannot see the damage to us all here? The bullies are campaigning confidently and without fear of reprisals, for barring a smoker from Employment, Housing or Community Many others join in declaring child abuse against parents in custody hearings could be justifyable. The Ontario Government dispensing hatred to our children endorsed and applauded, at a site they call stupid, it’s very name screams violence, this is indefensible by a government in a civilized society yet no one noticed. The same Government ministry has recently announced a couple of decries of note; "Quit or be punished" and more recently "Fat is the new tobacco" Will the term fat have a similar wide berth of definition in science, so we can repeat the process in the coming decade? Now they approach our homes the castle to some will be a fortress to others, defending their fading right to escape from their insidious tormentors.

The diagnosis should be clear we could do a lot better. The alternative again could be defense of a momentous lawsuit on our horizon in the civil rights abuses against the victims of both the product and the gang of bullies. Justice will have the final say in the campaign of hatred, a deliberately created pandemic in our culture.

Does a smoking ban result in protection of non-smokers who now deal with an increasingly meaner more violent society? Do we reduce preventable death by ignoring the cause? Can any deny informed consent is not well served in our current approach?

If any are determined enough to answer yes to any of these questions; a self-examination is in order, to understand your need to express intolerance and abdicate for crimes against others for the use of a legal product.