Wednesday, 21 January 2015

A New Definition Of Violence, WHO Style

Via the WHO, some news from freshly-crowned World Shark-jumping Champions, Latvia.
Following the law on Children Rights Protection stating that smoking in the presence of a child is regarded as a physical violence, the tobacco control law now clearly states that smoking in the presence of a child is prohibited.
Wow! So now a mythical scare based on a fairy story created by George Godber in the 1970s because he wasn't keen on the smell of tobacco is considered "physical violence" in backward states? Looks like they're deadly serious about demanding Latvians quit smoking then, eh?
The revised law applies also to electronic smoking devices, containing nicotine or not.
Or maybe not.
The Ministry of Health believes that the new approach and the philosophy of the law will help to push forward even more stringent rules in the future to fulfill obligations of the WHO FCTC and its guidelines.
"Even more stringent rules in the future"? You mean that banging smokers and vapers up for GBH over pretend harm is just a starter for ten? What does Latvia propose as punishment for crossing a road with a child in front of fume-spewing idling traffic, a firing squad?

If this is what the WHO are handing their legendary cash-stuffed envelopes out to achieve, it's surely time the UK copies the USA and tells the WHO we won't be bound by the hideous FCTC these unelected, corrupt, overpaid arses have created, doncha think?

I don't call tobacco controllers extremists for nothing you know. It's just that it's the most accurate decription.


9 comments:

What the.... said...

Here’s a comment appearing in an Australian newspaper in 1912 and concerning encounters with tobacco smoke outdoors:

A paragraph in The Register of September 14, 1912, announced that the City Council is daring to deal with the smoke nuisance. If the council can remove from our streets the smoke which is continually puffed in our faces, and so give us a chance to breathe the purest air obtainable, some of us will be exceedingly grateful, and the names of the men responsible for the change will be passed onto future generations as those of men who had courage to face an evil and deal with it and not merely to talk and write on health matters. At present it is dangerous to a person's health to walk through the streets of Adelaide.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/58599326?searchTerm=smoking&searchLimits=

Then there’s:

“The right of each person to breathe and enjoy fresh and pure air—air uncontaminated by unhealthful or disagreeable odors and fumes is a
constitutional right, and cannot be taken away by legislatures or courts, much less by individuals pursuing their own thoughtless or selfish
indulgence.”


Sound familiar? Well, that’s from 1911…..

1911: Dr. Charles Pease stated the position of the Non-Smokers’ Protective
League of America in a letter to the New York Times, dated November 10, 1911:

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lqp46a99/pdf;jsessionid=5647F950375B5064AA449F152F20E8C9.tobacco03

What the.... said...

All the above are long before the first “study”, in 1981, on secondhand smoke. Yet antismokers have been whining for centuries of “hazard”
from SHS. That’s what makes antismokers antismokers. They believe, and have believed for centuries, they are being harmed by SHS regardless of facts.

Antismokers believe they are “superior” beings and that their proclivities, referred to as “a right to smoke-free air”, must always take precedence everywhere. Antismokers are, by definition, prohibitionists. There are the mostly prohibitionists who believe that smoking must be banned in all places open to the public, indoors and out. These antismokers accept that people can smoke only in the privacy of their own homes and they do not support a ban on the sale of tobacco. Then there are the full prohibitionists. In addition to the mostly prohibitionists, these antismokers also want a ban on the sale of tobacco: They want tobacco-use entirely eradicated from the world.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lqp46a99/pdf;jsessionid=5647F950375B5064AA449F152F20E8C9.tobacco03

Note, too, that the thoughts in the last link are also a few years before the first study on SHS. Although antismokers might argue amongst themselves about extent of prohibition, they have one commonality – smoking must be banned in all places open to the public, indoors and out. Another theme
over the last century is antismokers’ hijacking of all nonsmokers to advance
their “cause”. Nonsmokers are simply people that do not smoke. Antismokers are an entirely different mentality. They are misocapnists/capnophobes: They hate smoke/smoking/smokers. It’s antismokers that believe they must be protected from ever being exposed to ambient tobacco smoke, indoors and out. It’s antismokers that advance the vacuous idea of “nonsmokers’ rights” in attempting to accommodate their deranged view of tobacco use/smoke.

Interestingly, then Surgeon-General, Steinfield, was referring to tobacco use as an “addiction”. Yet tobacco-use was reasonably not viewed as an addiction. At around the same time – early 1970s - George Godber, the leader of the current antismoking assault and mostly prohibitionist, also
referred to tobacco users as “addicts”.

Although antismokers were spouting “addiction” and SHS “harm”, throwbacks to 1800s America, these were not supported by evidence. Since the 1970s, “evidence” of harm has been concocted and terms re-defined to push the antismoking agenda.

Lisabelle said...

Basically, when you allow your own governments to disarm you, you are now at their merciless tyranny. Now, your own flesh and blood, is not in your charge, your child to call as your family. They are subjects of the State and the state determines how your child must be taught, raised, fed and influenced. I never imagined in my lifetime that I would see what my Grandparents did in Nazi occupation of Europe, the separation of and murder of families. How can you get back your lives in Europe, or countries such as Austrailia, Canada, New Zealand where WHO dominates in such an inhumane way? I am mortified beyond words, that personal freedom to smoke, or vape has been invaded and is threatened to the core of the very fabric of humanities natural order. Pathetic!

What the.... said...

The Latvian circumstance is just the latest installment of antismoker derangement:

Revised tobacco control law to protect citizens from tobacco smoke came into force in the end of 2014 in Latvia clearly establishing citizens’ rights to be protected from tobacco smoke. The aim of the law emphasizes the rights of non-smokers to live in an environment free from tobacco smoke over smokers’ rights to smoke.

There it is again: “The aim of the law emphasizes the rights of non-smokers to live in an environment free from tobacco smoke over smokers’ rights to smoke.” That’s the standard antismoking belief – with the standard
hijacking of the entire nonsmokers’ group - that goes back centuries. The
Godberites at least acknowledged that laws could not be enacted simply because antismokers hated smoke. They had to conjure “hazard” so that antismokers could argue for laws to protect them from these “hazards”. Yet even this charade has now been dispensed with. Laws are now being instituted not even on the basis of concocted hazards but in reflecting the baseless antismoking credo that antismokers have “the right to live in an environment free from tobacco smoke”.


But even this derangement is not enough. The antismokers now declare, and also a long held belief, that exposing children to tobacco smoke is “physical violence” and, therefore, also requiring a “protective” law.

We’re right back to the antismoking hysteria of mid-1800s to early-1900s America and also seen in the Nazi “war on tobacco”, an extension of American eugenics. From the last few centuries, it can be demonstrated that antismokers are neurotic, bigoted, megalomaniacal, and pathological liars. There is 400 years of evidence, including torture (nose slitting) and executions (beheadings), that antismoking is a significant mental disorder.

Antismokers’ hyper-reactivity to smoke is abnormal. It’s typical of anxiety disorders, hypochondria, somatization. Antismoking is like a deranged cult whose primary belief is that disciples never be exposed to tobacco smoke. Not even a whiff, indoors or out. Believing themselves to be “superior”, antismokers want laws to reflect their credo which they fraudulently depict as “nonsmokers rights”. The more antismokers are appeased, the more absurd and hysterical become their claims, and the more draconian and
inhumane become their demands. Let antismokers dominate proceedings and they will wreak social havoc with their fear and hate-mongering. It’s antismoking that’s a violent assault on mental and social health at the very least.

What the.... said...

“The use of tobacco, in any form, is a dirty, filthy, disgusting,
degrading habit
No gentleman will use tobacco in this city
You have no more right to pollute with tobacco smoke the atmosphere which clean people have to breathe than you have to spit in the water which they have to drink.
Cut it out you fool before you reap smokers’ cancer, paralysis, or one of the many other diseases caused by the use of the filthy, nasty, stinking stuff [tobacco]”

…….

The quote is from an anti-tobacco billboard (photo circa 1915) on the road leading into Zion, Illinois, USA.
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullimage.asp?id=55422

Seven years later [1971], Dr. Jesse L. Steinfeld [then Surgeon-General] issued a second report focused on the dangers of secondhand smoke. He proposed what he called the Non-Smoker's Bill of Rights, which said that the country must free non-smokers from the hazards and annoyance of other people's addictions.


http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-jesse-steinfeld-20140806-story.html

What the.... said...

Here’s a comment appearing just yesterday summarizing the mostly prohibitionist position. It should be obvious that the mentality is dysfunctional.

Crawl back under your rock. I have had to live with OTHER PEOPLE's smoke for 50 years. I am sick of it. I could care less what you do with your life, your lungs...but stay away from mine. Smoke on your OWN property. I choke when I step out of my car and smell your smoke. I gag when I have to walk thru your cloud. I want to sit outside at a local restaurant and NOT have to breath your smoke. I don't want to breath your STINK when in the drive thru line because your atmosphere is so disgusting that it follows not on YOU and your very essence link Linus in the Peanuts cartoons, but it also hovers around your car!
Your pleasure should NEVER infringe on another persons's right to breath clean air.


http://www.waxahachietx.com/midlothian/opinion/columnists/column-the-history-of-anti-smoking-zealots/article_f6f877e8-aec2-5d41-855c-e9b96b42bc47.html

What the.... said...

The Latvian circumstance is just the latest installment of antismoker derangement:

Revised tobacco control law to protect citizens from tobacco smoke came into force in the end of 2014 in Latvia clearly establishing citizens’ rights to be protected from tobacco smoke. The aim of the law emphasizes the rights of non-smokers to live in an environment free from tobacco smoke over smokers’ rights to smoke.

http://www.euro.who.int/en/countries/latvia/news/news/2015/01/smoking-in-the-presence-of-a-child-is-regarded-as-a-physical-violence,-says-new-law-in-latvia

There it is again: “The aim of the law emphasizes the rights of non-smokers to live in an environment free from tobacco smoke over smokers’ rights to smoke.” That’s the standard antismoking belief – nonsmokers’ rights
(i.e., antismokers’ rights) - with the standard hijacking of the entire
nonsmokers’ group that goes back centuries. The Godberites at least
acknowledged that laws could not be enacted simply because antismokers hated smoke. They had to conjure “hazard” so that antismokers could argue for laws to protect them from these “hazards”. Yet even this charade has now been dispensed with. Laws are now being instituted not even on the basis of concocted hazards but in reflecting the baseless antismoking credo that antismokers have “the right to live in an environment free from tobacco smoke”.


But even this derangement is not enough. The antismokers now declare, and also a long held belief, that exposing children to tobacco smoke is “physical violence” and, therefore, also requiring a “protective” law.

We’re right back to the antismoking hysteria of mid-1800s to early-1900s America and also seen in the Nazi “war on tobacco”, an extension of American eugenics. From the last few centuries, it can be demonstrated that antismokers are neurotic, bigoted, megalomaniacal, and pathological liars. There is 400 years of evidence, including torture (nose slitting) and executions (beheadings), that antismoking is a significant mental disorder.

Antismokers’ hyper-reactivity to smoke is abnormal. It’s typical of anxiety disorders, hypochondria, somatization. Antismoking is like a deranged cult whose primary belief is that disciples never be exposed to tobacco smoke. Not even a whiff, indoors or out. Believing themselves to be “superior”, antismokers want laws to reflect their credo which they fraudulently depict as “nonsmokers rights”. The more antismokers are appeased, the more absurd and hysterical become their claims, and the more draconian and
inhumane become their demands. Let antismokers dominate proceedings and they will wreak social havoc with their fear and hate-mongering. It’s antismoking that’s a violent assault on mental and social health at the very least.

What the.... said...

DP, there was a point to my comments. Unfortunately, one of the comments – the one that makes the Latvian connection (wouldn’t you know it) – has gone missing, seemingly sucked into the disqus “black hole”.

Blogger said...

QUANTUM BINARY SIGNALS

Get professional trading signals sent to your cell phone every day.

Follow our signals NOW & profit up to 270% a day.