Stand FAST: Fight Anti-Smoker Tyranny

A few months back, I told readers of this blog that I’d begin making regular posts and adding a few new features to make the blog a little more interesting. I had intended to do just that. But, I got sidetracked.

At the time, I was doing a little research into the antics of the anti-smoker fanatics and their efforts to ban smoking across Canada. What I found was a well organized, well financed worldwide attempt to eradicate smoking by eliminating smokers.

It’s not a conspiracy. It’s an open, well orchestrated war on smokers which relies on misinformation, corrupt science and deceptive statistics to deceive the uninformed, smokers and non-smokers alike; a propaganda campaign worthy of the Der Furher himself.

In a process they openly refer to as de-normalization, anti-smoker organizations irresponsibly promote fear, hatred and intolerance and advocate discrimination against smokers. Many recent initiatives go far beyond any credible claims of protecting anyone’s “right” to clean air or the alleged hazards of secondhand smoke.

Included in these: efforts designed to deny a smoker’s right to hold a job; proposals to deny smokers a right to rental accommodation; initiatives to declare smoking parents child abusers and deny smokers the right to adopt or foster children; efforts to deny smokers appropriate medical treatment; smoking bans that deny business owners of private property rights

These are morally reprehensible acts, not to be tolerated by any “free” society.

Defenders of a free society should strive for compromise achieved through reasoned debate, not the imposition of the “will” of the majority; especially when that will has been suborned by tainted science, dishonest statistics and outright lies. True democracy defends the rights of the minority; it doesn’t deny or trash them “in the public good”.

And, the non-smokers in the house shouldn’t get too complacent or convince themselves that it’s not their fight. It’s no longer about smoking or secondhand smoke. Those who condone, and in a growing number of cases support, the initiatives of tobacco prohibitionists; who condone or support discrimination against smokers in housing, employment and medical treatment should be very cautious.

Anti-smoker, anti-fat, anti-abortion, anti-alcohol; all these obsessions challenge personal liberty and individual rights. Those who support the repression of free choice may wish to re-evaluate their position when it’s their turn to be pilloried for making a particular lifestyle choice.

If anti-smoker fanatics are allowed to continue and intensify their attacks on smokers, there is no telling who the next target will be.

I’ve hated bullies since I was a kid. And, the anti-smoker Nazis are just another incarnation of the bullies we all knew growing up.

I can’t fight back the way I could as a younger man. But, I have a reasonable command of the English language and a computer. Maybe, in some small way, I can help get the truth out.

Like the Nazis in the thirties, no one took the anti-smoker brigade seriously. No one believed their propaganda efforts could fool an entire civilized society. But, they have and, at this point, it will be an uphill battle. I may not make much of a difference, but then, it won’t be the first time I’ve found myself pissing into the wind.

Unfortunately, considerable research and reading is required, which means I won’t be able to continue the fun part of blogging, at least for the time being.

But, for anybody out there still interested in reading what I have to say, drop by my new blog: Stand FAST

No stinkers allowed

In my last post, I mentioned the odour activists in the US who seemed hell bent on banning everything that smelled, from Chanel No. 5 to Old Spice. But it’s not just in the US that the fanatical fragrance foes are intent on saving the populace from exposure to the deadly toxins in scented body deodorant.

The odour activists have been active in Canada for a number of years, some say as far back as 1991. For example, it was reported in 2000, that a Toronto resident had filed suit against a neighbor for invading her air space with cooking smells from his bar-b-que. At the same time, on Prince Edward Island, a joint union-employer recommendation was made to ban perfumes and aftershaves from government offices. And, Queensway-Carleton Hospital in Ottawa embarked on a "No Scents Is Good Sense" campaign.

But the real hotbed of the anti-fragrance fanatics has been identified as Halifax, Nova Scotia. In 2000, it was reported in the national press in both the US and Canada, that Halifax was in the grip of anti-odour hysteria.

The local newspaper, the Chronicle-Herald, prohibited its employees from using perfume, aftershave, scented deodorant, shampoo, or even strong-smelling mouthwash on the job. Many of the city's public institutions, and private businesses, demanded that workers be "scent-free." The city’s hospitals began instituting bans, leading people to believe it was a serious health hazard.

As one of the fragrance fanatics told the Toronto Globe and Mail, "The main point we've been making is that it's a health issue, not a matter of likes and dislikes." Uh-huh. The health issue she was talking about was Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), a generic condition that has not been proven to even exist.

Although some studies have shown that high concentrations of some perfumes can cause annoyance to allergy and asthma sufferers, there is no evidence that perfumes pose any real threat to the general public.

Karen Robinson, an anti-scent campaigner, during the height of the Halifax hysteria, claimed: ''Aromatic chemicals are poisoning people and the planet as much as tobacco or pesticides,''

Other people have likened exposure to fragrances to the alleged health hazards of exposure to secondhand smoke. Many of the chemicals found in second-hand smoke, are the same chemicals that are found in perfume products, they claim. That’s likely true, since there are literally thousands of chemicals in each, it shouldn’t be surprising that both products share many in common.

However, there is no legitimate scientific evidence that either exposure to secondhand smoke or Giorgio represents a serious health hazard to otherwise healthy human beings.

Said one Haligonian, “I don't think in the beginning people realized quite how invasive this might become". Uh-huh. The same thing could also be said about secondhand smoke.

Banning body odour

While doing some research for my other blog, Stand FAST, I came across an item on the Forces International website about stinkers and smellers. Uh-huh. I said stinkers and smellers.

Apparently, the Murfreesboro (Tennessee) City Council adopted a good hygiene policy back in 2003, to the effect that: "No employee shall have an odor generally offensive to others when reporting to work. An offensive body odor may result from a lack of good hygiene, from an excessive application of a fragrant aftershave or cologne or from other causes."

That’s right folks. Up here in the Great White North, Ontario’s Liberal government passed the Smoke Free Ontario Act to control the alleged health hazards of exposure to secondhand smoke. Down in Tennessee, they’ve passed a fragrance free Murfreesboro law to protect society from the hazards of exposure to Chanel # 5, Irish Spring and Old Spice.

According to the anti-fragrance fanatics, fragrances contain neurotoxic, carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and other toxic chemicals. The toxic chemicals contained in fragrances can make anyone sick in large enough quantities. People with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS) are especially susceptible to the dangers of this public health hazard and will virtually always get sick from even slight traces of these chemicals.

People don’t speak out about the dangers posed by inconsiderate stinkers for very good reason. Your fragrance may have already affected someone so much that she or he has trouble speaking, thinking, taking action or even remaining awake and conscious. Uh-huh. They could be knocked unconscious by a whiff of Bounce from your freshly washed shirt.

And, just what criteria will be used to identify and define offensive odours?

Well, according to City Councilman Toby Gilley, the standard would be the same one a U.S. Supreme Court justice used to identify pornography. "We'll know it when we see it," Gilley said. Or, in the case of the Murfreesboro anti-fragrance ordinance, "We'll know it when we smell it."

Now, I don’t want to make fun of people with MCS, even if the National Institute of Environmental Health Science says the very existence of such an affliction is in dispute. But, I do think that banning people who wear perfume, cologne, scented hair spray and the like from public places is going a little too far.

Besides, I don’t think it’s all that funny.

There are people out there who don’t like the smell of burning tobacco. So, they turned secondhand smoke into a health hazard and banned smoking in all public places, bars, restaurants, etc. Anti-smoker fanatics, through distorted science and suspect statistics, managed to turn smokers into social misfits.

The odour activists want to eliminate harmful smells.

I know what you’re thinking. You’ve made up your mind that this is a joke. And, you’re wrong. “So what?” You say. That kind of nonsense won’t work in Canada.

Wrong again. More in my next post.

To be continued

I’m still here, just busy elsewhere

For anyone who thinks I haven’t made a post in the last month because I was too drunk to find the damn keyboard, you’re wrong. I’ve been busy doing a little research into the anti-smoker brigade and smoking bans around the world.

Not a shred of evidence that secondhand smoke is likely to kill anyone. They’re running a con game to justify bans, punitive taxation and other discriminatory practices directed at smokers. And, some polls place the number of people who believe the lies and distortions of science as high as 80%. And, worse, even smokers are beginning to believe their bullshit and bafflegab.

Check out my other blog to find the truth about the alleged hazards of secondhand smoke. Stand FAST

I’ll return to making regular posts to this blog, probably twice a week, in about a week. I’ll also be updating the music files within the next week or so. For now, here’s a little bit of lunacy from merry old England.

Bureaucracy run amok

Eighty-two year old Jean Raine and a friend were driven to the mall in Kendal, Cumbria (England boys and girls, England) by a neighbour. Miss Raine, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, has a valid disabled parking permit. She had her neighbour park in a handicapped parking spot and placed her permit in the front windshield.

Feeling unwell, she told her friends to go about their shopping and stayed in the car to rest, and, promptly fell asleep.

A parking warden (Parking Control Officer) noted Miss Raine asleep in the car. He also noted that her permit was upside down. So, he issued a ticket with a fine of 35 pound sterling ($ 68.00 Canadian). He didn’t bother to wake Miss Raine, simply placing the parking ticket on the windshield.

Miss Raine and the driver of the car appealed the ticket.

A council spokesman said: “If anyone feels they have reason to challenge a penalty charge notice (ticket) then they can appeal to the council in the first instance, followed by an appeal to an independent tribunal if they choose.

"Guidance notes (instructions) issued with the badge and parking disc (permit) clearly state that it should be clearly and correctly displayed at all times."

So, we have a valid parking permit placed in full view with an elderly woman asleep in the vehicle. And, we have an overzealous parking control officer so anxious to make his quota that he’s willing to give the old girl an $68.00 ticket because the damn permit was upside down. And, even worse, we have a pompous bureaucrat defending the injustice and refusing to deposit the ticket where it belonged – in the nearest garbage can.