Best of the Web:

Passive Smoking: An Institutional Problem

Forces International Media Network
Mon, 12 Nov 2007 07:38 UTC

Forces International are glad to re-introduce to our readers the multimedia version of the most concise and scientifically accurate documentary on the international fraud on passive smoking. In only thirteen minutes you can learn how to educate others, while gaining for yourself a full perspective on the depth of this fraud - and of the corruption of the institutions that promote it.

Reader Comments

skrickov · 2011-06-19T18:01:17Z

ok,

i cut watching. This is nonsense. Make simple experiment and go pull some air filter in smoky coffe shop. and count that picture by 35 year of some worker non-smoker who has to snuff that air as long as retirement. i understand smoking marijuana, this could be healthy :-) but cigarettes, thats industry folks! it is not good, it is made for ONLY one purpose-making money. i smoked once, it is a fraud. it frames your brain in fiction that your brain is functioning just perfect like never before. and you feel good. first , smokers are not in control of body, try to quit if you think that you controling body. you cant, ha? you cant control own body means you are not free person. which numbers can counter that? is that benefit? second, half of money you give for pack goes directly to your lovely government. third, somebody else who dont smoke has to enjoy your expiration which just exit lung with all your microbes and dirt riding the smoke. and he has to be quiet because there is no adequate numbers on his side.
*****
come on, i am ready, one by one, please.... :-)

tonybalony · 2011-06-19T23:18:31Z

Fraud to call it a Fraud

Well skrickov...you won't get no argument from me...I'm with you on what you say...you seem to have common sense, which brings me to Dr. Gori.

At the beginning he said to the effect you don't need the data but just common sense then he goes off into referring to data to support his claims it is a fraud, which is impossible to rebuke unless one has access to the studies and actually study the studies; such is the case when using the scientific method of determining something solely on that data - it can swing both ways.

Now from the get go I should say there is no need to demonize smoking or to make people who do smoke feel guilty - people should have the freedom to decide on that matter for themselves.

However, I am very healthy and can tolerate and recover quit well from adverse affects on my body quit well. I also know what to do to keep myself in top physical health...and meaning not just the feeling of well-being, but at the expense of maybe sounding way out there - health good enough that I am feeling blissful as the result of my body creating its own chemical high much better than any substance like nicotine, caffeine, THC, psilocybin or whatever - a very clear state of being and not some puritan who is above you .

Having said that, smoking both as a smoker ( I have been trying once or twice a year now to see what all the fuss is about ), and having been in work situations where I have had no control of the environment know all to well how damaging second hand smoke is to me and my well being. Will I or would I ever get lung cancer from it - I doubt it but the Dr. Gori seems to focus on just that and generally the fear mongers do too, which is a shame because even if second hand smoke did not directly cause lung cancer, it can and does put a stress on ones physical health which together with other stresses caused by other sources led to health problems down the road if unchecked. THIS is based on common sense.

Dr. Gori also mentions the difference between "safe" cigarettes and ones that are not, sort of throwing out the window his theory that it is a fraud, which is fine since at least he acknowledges smoke can be hazardous. He also infers that there is a difference between the "smoke" and nicotine which is common sense too because well all know no matter which side of the fence you are on that smokers for the most part smoke tobacco for the nicotine and not the smoke per se. He also introduces the idea that the "2-3" cigarettes a day is for ones pleasure, which brings up the point - why is ones life not pleasurable enough that they have to resort to smoking cigarettes in the first place?

If you look at that question you will find that the conspiracy put forth on this site that governments through legislation are trying to get rid of smoking as a way to deny the benefits of nicotine ( through as an example the suggestion of improved neuron functioning ) I think is a fraud in itself. If the governments really wanted to deny a benefit to keep people controlled they would have outlawed tobacco long ago. Actually, they allow tobacco as it is because it allows people who are already stressed by the PTB systems of the economic treadmill we are all put into since birth, to keep producing for them. The nicotine, caffeine and alcohol that is made so readily available allows people to keep pumping away and producing for the elite. They don't want to legalize marijauna or magic mushrooms and other similar substances, why? - because people would opt out of their system and wake up; Nicotine, caffeine and alcohol do not "wake" people up - it just helps them to keep on going with where they are at. The only reason we have legislation coming into effect banning smoking from place like work or restaurants, is because people are getting sick of having to be exposed for long periods of time to second hand smoke - regardless of whether it causes lung cancer or not; people are realizing they just don't like it and don't want to put up with it.

As for smoking directly oneself I would say why smoke at all for that kick?. Have you not ever breathed in fresh oxygenated air and felt the kick you get from that?. Is it not common sense to see there is something amiss to have to smoke daily to get a kick, or a calming sensation?, the same could be said for a cup of coffee or to relax with a glass of wine. Fine for these things on occasion and as how an individual sees fit for themselves as variety to life and its joys - but as a daily habit? - to me there is no common sense in that.

To me this whole issue of whether smoking is bad or good is almost like the arguments between left or right political parties, it is serving nothing but as a distraction in the first place; the underlying question to me being why having to resort to smoking in the first place?

Not to infer there is some lack by the smokers who read this or especially the Sott editors because from my observation there is a trend on this site to keep putting only studies and articles that support smoking as if it is good for you. It gives the appearance that people are trying justify their habit in a way that shows those people are not really comfortable with their habit; like they really don't understand why they smoke in the first place at the same time they feel they are being persecuted in so many ways ( which is understandable in that regard ). Yes I understand this is not an easy world to live in and we all turn to many different ways of dealing with it the best we can whether that's smoking or something else, but it lacks common sense to think smoking whether directly or second hand has no potential for harm or ill-effects.

l_e_cox · 2011-06-19T23:44:18Z

only addresses lung cancer argument

All this group is trying to say is that smokers were made into social pariahs based on the LIE that their smoking increases the risk to those around them of getting cancer.

I am a non-smoker and I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. As such, prolonged exposure to smoke decreased my health and well-being. But no one has ever proved that it increased my cancer risk!

I know some good people who are smokers, but I have to stay away from them while they smoke. And now I have local laws that help me to do that. But apparently they were enacted for the wrong reasons! I personally think it is bad manners to smoke around people who object. But this whole social campaign against smoking in general appears to be some kind of setup. And it has masked the fact that manufactured cigarettes are dangerous for reasons other than their tobacco content.

It's just another example of the games being played with the public on a range of issues, but health issues in particular. The point of this website is not to make non-smokers wrong but to get to the root of the more general deception being perpetrated on us.

Roth · 2011-06-20T00:04:19Z

Nicotine prevents the cancer?

I read or heard somewhere that the reason so many people get lung cancer after they stop smoking is because the nicotine prevented the cancer from manifesting while the smoker smoked.

Did I dream this? Or, has anyone else heard of this?

Highland Fleet Lute · 2011-06-20T03:36:56Z

"I read or heard somewhere that the reason so many people get lung cancer after they stop smoking is because the nicotine prevented the cancer from manifesting while the smoker smoked.

Did I dream this? Or, has anyone else heard of this?"

I've heard this, but I heard it as "hearsay" only.

With regard to my health, I've been smoking 30 cigs a day since I was a teenager, and I haven't had a cold or flu since the eighties. But then again, it's a "multi" world, i.e. there are always a number of factors that contribute to any given result. This is why doing anything under lab conditions is so unreliable. It may well be that I don't get ill directly because of the fact that I smoke, or it could be that I smoke and am a meditator. Or, because I smoke, I don't eat green vegetables and I listen to a lot of charged up music. Or, because I smoke and I had a happy childhood. It could be a combination of all sorts of things.

skrickov · 2011-06-21T16:16:18Z

You are right. after quiting smoking there is delayed problems with lung and breathing. i have seen it in hospital. i dont remember name of that "desease". also, body start to behave in uncommonly way, hidden "errors" in body became visible very fast, a some kind of body disclosure, bad and good.afer i quit i had such experience.
cigs are not only ones who rise risk of cancer. believe or not there is milk. milk is accelerant for deseases because it is very eficient with binding various poison from air and it transport those poisoning material very efective thru blood. scientist allways take results which are in favour of their theory and reject any which dont fit. if they have to add "weight" to results,then uses (poor)animals. there are people who smoke like locomotive, work hard, and eat poor menu. but they dont live in cities. and they live over 80.
i understand that one have to control own brain to get more results in thinking or connecting with creation to make artistic creation and that is functioning.thats true. but brain is a muscle which is often acting against us directly. it is often behaving in negative and depresive way and it must be put under some control with stimulus like cigs,drugs and alcohol.
artistic creations does not come from brain,it comes from inner human beings which manage sometimes to bypass intelect and connect with "divine creation". it is not my theory but i love it. plenty of people just dont need stimulus like cigs and that must be RESPECTED because that is only way they can function properly.
bottom line: i think that cigarettes are very dangerous because they are acting as ACCELERANT to various desease including cancer but ONLY when one is consuming INDUSTRIAL food, milk, meat, vegetables and fruit and live in smoggy area.(i dont saw insect flying over fruit in market almost two decade,interesting,hmm...). and if there is some conspiracy theory could be that future food cannot be sold to smokers because they will die for sure from various kind of cancer.

Highland Fleet Lute · 2011-06-20T04:26:22Z

"All this group is trying to say is that smokers were made into social pariahs based on the LIE that their smoking increases the risk to those around them of getting cancer."

In the 20th all the painters, writers, musicians etc that were worth anything, were all smokers. All yer Orwells, Lennons, Dylans, Picassos. You don't have to look far to see how much the world is in debt to smokers.

Creativity is an instant threat to the fascist brain. They fear it so much they daren't even name that fear to themselves. The logic runs: remove smokers from the social fabric, and you remove the threatening gifts they carry around with them

Highland Fleet Lute · 2011-06-20T04:27:05Z

Sorry, that should read "20th Century".

Did that include being chief fluffer for Big Mike :O The defendant held multiple roles in the Obama administration Fluffer (Wiki explanation) -...

HashAttack2

Comment: One would be naive to think that those sex crimes against children only started once he left the White House. His sexual depravities were...

TJ1776

I see that they practice without the FAB 500 glide bombs being dropped on them :O "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" - Mike...

HashAttack2

“…Fears and deep-seated anxieties” are what create the need for power – and wars. But power is an illusion, no one can hold it forever. History...

peter mcloughlin

Do they cover their faces so nobody notices that they aren't really Germans?

Psstoffgoy

Best of the Web:

Passive Smoking: An Institutional Problem

Reader Comments

Latest News

Picture of the Day

Quote of the Day

Recent Comments

Quantum Quirk