For thousands of years in the Americas, and about 500 years pretty much everywhere else, tobacco has been a friend to mankind. It has been used to relax, to stimulate, and to treat various ailments. It has been a vital part of rituals both social and spiritual. It has been used as currency. Whole communities have been founded on it - including, arguably, the United States of America.
Wait a minute. Scratch that! Smoking is a vile, filthy habit that will almost inevitably kill you. No one smokes willingly; they are simply pathetic addicts, duped by evil tobacco companies. Tobacco is a plague which must be wiped out.
Like most people these days, I was more inclined, up until a few years ago, to believe the second paragraph than the first. I was a very moderate smoker and almost gave up. But
something about the sheer hysteria of the anti smoking movement, and the various holes and contradictions in their arguments, made me suspicious. Some time in the late 1990s I arrived in Los Angeles and, as my taxi pulled out of the airport, I was confronted by a huge red billboard: SECONDHAND SMOKE KILLS. I thought: even heavy smokers take several decades to develop lung cancer. Surely a nonsmoker, even regularly exposed to smoke in the air, would have to live to be about 300 to catch up? And
how exactly would you know it was smoke that killed them, as opposed to, say, the appalling LA smog?
Since then I've researched the smoking issue in depth. I've unraveled reams of statistics, met with doctors and academics, and networked with scores of other researchers and activists who are trying to get at the truth.
I'm now convinced that the dangers of smoking - and particularly 'passive' smoking - are greatly exaggerated, for reasons which have more to do with politics, power and profit than objective science. I believe the anti-smoking movement - especially lobby groups like ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) - has far too much money and influence, and that their dishonesty and bullying tactics should be worrying even to those who hate tobacco.
Comment: Their strategy seems to be: make an example of prominent and popular writers/journalists to frighten all others into silence or submission. First they came for Assange, now they're 'spreading their wings' to target dissenters of all stripes.
While internal British issues like 'Brexit' and Scottish secession may have motivated the prosecution of Murray, it strikes us that it's more likely Murray came on the Clinton gang's radar for his hints that he has evidence concerning who and how exactly the Podesta and DNC emails were sent to Wikileaks in 2016...