I love smoking

Status
Not open for further replies.

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,973
San Diego
Vapers are missing much information.

It’s America that’s popularized antismoking insanity – again, and which other countries are following suit. The problem with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history. America has a terrible history with this sort of “health” fanaticism/zealotry/extremism or “clean living” hysteria – including antismoking - that goes back more than a century.

Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of it predating even the semblance of a scientific basis or the more recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”. Antismoking crusades typically run on inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and bigotry. One of the two major antismoking (and anti-alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise) crusades early last century was in America. [The other crusade was in Nazi Germany and the two crusades were intimately connected by physician-led eugenics]. The USA has been down this twisted, divisive path before. Consider the following: The bulk of claims made about smoking/tobacco were erroneous, baseless, but highly inflammatory. Unfortunately, the propaganda did its destructive job in the short term, producing mass hysteria or a bigotry bandwagon. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale.
Thank You For Not Smoking | American History Lives at American Heritage
Editorials & Opinion | The Endless War Against Tobacco -- The Lesson In All This Is That Social Engineering Has Its Limits. A Sizable Percentage Of The Population Will Smoke However Stringent The Limitations And However Insistent The Public Condemnat
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf

Some insight into the connection between American eugenics - California in particular - and German eugenics. Eugenics was popularized in America decades before Nazism. The Germans, including Hitler, were students of American eugenics.
Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection - SFGate
I am not allowed to say what I want to say in response to this post, due to cuss words.
But .... yeah, all day long, and speak it brother.

And anyone that doesn't hear what this brother of ours is saying?
Open your ears. Open your eyes. Open your heart.

Best freaking post ever.
All day long.

If you don't agree, then you are a pawn in the game.
 
Last edited:

Ambient

Full Member
Aug 26, 2011
33
143
Australia
The “Godber Blueprint” is NOT the book available for download at Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger . The Godber Blueprint is the long web [home] page.

The term “Godber Blueprint” is the name given by the author at this web site to a collection of archival information concerning antismoking activity. It’s detailed information that’s only come to light in the last few years. It’s assumed that the “Blueprint” was associated with Godber’s name because, at the time, he was the most vocal and rabid zealot at the World Conferences on Smoking & Health that the other zealots in attendance looked up to.

The World Conferences occurred through the sponsorship of the World Health Organization. Godber was a WHO representative. Godber has long since died and the WHO continues the <i>de facto</i> prohibition crusade, now administering the Framework Convention on tobacco Control that most countries are signed up to. The “Godber Blueprint” could now be referred to as the “WHO Blueprint”.

Important to note is that the rabid antismoking zealots were making numerous inflammatory claims, e.g., passive smoke “harm” and “social cost” years before any “evidence”, contrived as it eventually was. For example, the first “study” on secondhand smoke was in 1981 by the antismoker, Hirayama – an entirely forced line of enquiry, and 18 years before the flawed, agenda-driven EPA Report (1993) that declared SHS a “danger” to nonsmokers. Also, Godber was referring to smokers as “addicts” in 1975 although tobacco smoking was not considered an addiction at the time. Smoking was incoherently redefined as an “addiction” ( a throwback to 1800s America) in 1988 by the Office of the Surgeon-General that by then had been hijacked by the same antismoking zealots. What we’ve witnessed over the last 30 years is the trash thinking of zealots later “legitimized” by their own trash “research” and peddled through zealot-hijacked organizations – manipulation through “appeal to authority”, e.g., Office of the Surgeon-General.

This is why the information in the Godber Blueprint is critical. It highlights that the current antismoking crusade – like most before – is a moralizing, social engineering, eradication/prohibition crusade, and has been so from the outset. It is the attempt, through denormalizing propaganda, to turn smoking into an “immoral” and “shameful” act not fit for public view. But the antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists recognized in the 1970s that there were few takers for social engineering. Particularly in relatively free societies, including America and the peculiar state of California, coercive measures to conformity were viewed as repugnant by the majority.

The zealots had all sorts of coercive measures in mind – extortionate taxes, smoking bans - indoor and outdoor. But they recognized that the social engineering crusade had all but stalled. They were already talking in the late-70s that the only way forward was to convince nonsmokers that secondhand smoke exposure was a threat to their health despite their being no evidence for such an inflammatory claim.

So, since the 80s we’ve had self-installed social engineers (and their financial partners – government & Big Pharma) telling the public that they weren’t doing social engineering, that they weren’t moralizing, that they weren’t trying to force smokers to quit. They concocted storylines to masquerade their social engineering intent. Extortionate, punitive taxes – well, so their storyline goes, is because smokers are a “cost burden” to society and with concocted reports stating as much. Smoking bans – well, they’re necessary to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. “There’s no slippery slope; we’re not doing social engineering”, squealed the zealots. They’re lies that have been told many times over during the last three decades. And governments around the world got suckered in by the inflammatory rhetoric and the appeal of easy tax money, i.e., license to extort.

It’s only in the last few years that the zealots and their useful-idiot politicians are up front about the moralizing and social engineering, speaking of “denormalization” in glowing terms. For example, this just recently:
“She said allowing the devices (e-cigarettes) into places where cigarettes are now banned also could "renormalize" smoking and undermine the public perception that the habit is now acceptable only in the privacy of one's own home.”
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...ming-on-adding-e-cigarettes.html#.UrT2iHrZiSp

George Godber – 1975: “I imagine that most of us here know full well that our target must be, in the long-term, <b>the elimination of cigarette smoking</b>…… We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where <b>a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults</b>.”
[Remember, this statement was made 6 years before the very first, forced study on secondhand smoke by the antismoker Hirayama and 18 years before the flawed EPA(1993) Report that declared secondhand smoke as a “hazard” to nonsmokers]

Mike Daube has been with the current antismoking crusade from its early days. Here’s an article by Daube of only a year ago (2012) that reiterates the Godber Blueprint:

<i>“Extending restrictions on smoking in any environment so that it essentially becomes a practice only for consenting adults in private.”</i>
Bring on the end of tobacco use
 

Ambient

Full Member
Aug 26, 2011
33
143
Australia
1.
The official line is that there are no benefits in smoking which is only an addiction. This is an erroneous view that was peddled by the Temperance Movement in the 1800s and that was also picked up by the Eugenics Movement of early last century. Given the unfounded belief that there are no benefits in smoking, the question then becomes why people continue to smoke. The eugenicists (physicalists) “resolve” this question by claiming that the entire behavior is held together by “nicotine addiction”.

Post WWII, smoking/nicotine was, rightly, not considered an addiction. Nicotine was re-defined, contrary to available evidence, as “addictive” by US Surgeon-General C. Everett Koop in 1988 and very much in line with the physicalist view. The Office of the Surgeon-General had long been aligned to antismoking and a “smokefree” society, i.e., ideologically compromised.

It was also defined so in 1994 by an “expert panel” very much aligned to antismoking.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319381.300-us-ruling-turns-smokers-into-junkies.html

Some of the benefits of smoking:
Meta-analysis of the acute effects... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
http://diseases-viruses.suite101.com/article.cfm/nicotine_antiinflammatory_h1n1_cure
Smoking is Good For You!* : Discovery News
Carbon monoxide inhibits IL-17-induced IL-6 production through the MAPK pathway in human pulmonary epithelial cells | Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology
Therapeutic Role Found For Carbon Monoxide

Just nicotine is a cognitive enhancer. It aids focus. It’s not surprising that some of the more profound intellectuals, writers, musicians, artists, scientists of the last century were smokers.

The latest that smoking is a habit, not an addiction:
Smoking mind over smoking matter: Surprising new study shows cigarette cravings result from habit, not addiction

Nicotine is not peculiar to tobacco. There are small quantities in potatoes, tomatoes, green peppers, egg plant, and black tea:
MMS: Error

Nicotine is also a precursor of nicotinic acid, also known as niacin or vitamin B3 (NIcotinic ACid vitamIN).

Even the rabidly antismoking Royal College of Physicians has had to concede:
“It is now widely accepted that nicotine is the primary addictive component of tobacco smoke. In recent years, however, it has become clear that the psychobiological mechanisms which mediate the addiction are more complex than they first appeared……….However, the experimental animal data also indicate that, when compared with many other drugs of dependence, the reinforcing properties of nicotine appear relatively weak. Thus, it may be that nicotine alone does not have the powerful addictive properties necessary to account for the highly addictive nature of tobacco smoking, and that addiction to tobacco reflects complex interactions between nicotine, other stimuli associated with the inhalation of tobacco smoke, and possibly other environmental, social or behavioural stimuli associated with smoking.” (p.45, 2007)
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/4fc74817-64c5-4105-951e-38239b09c5db.pdf

A prominent American Tobacco Control advocate recently noted that the idea of “addiction” is highly “flexible” in antismoking circles: “The anti-smoking advocates seem to change the science on whether smoking is a choice or an addiction based on the issue of the day. If the issue is a lawsuit, then smoking is an addiction. If the issue is refusing to hire smokers, then smoking is a choice. If the issue is the FDA regulating nicotine, then smoking is an addiction. If the issue is denying medical care to smokers, then smoking suddenly becomes a choice again.” To which can be added, when it comes to extortionate taxes, smoking suddenly becomes a choice again.
 

Ambient

Full Member
Aug 26, 2011
33
143
Australia
1.
The official line is that there are no benefits in smoking which is only an addiction. This is an erroneous view that was peddled by the Temperance Movement in the 1800s and that was also picked up by the Eugenics Movement of early last century. Given the unfounded belief that there are no benefits in smoking, the question then becomes why people continue to smoke. The eugenicists (physicalists) “resolve” this question by claiming that the entire behavior is held together by “nicotine addiction”.

Post WWII, smoking/nicotine was, rightly, not considered an addiction. Nicotine was re-defined, contrary to available evidence, as “addictive” by US Surgeon-General C. Everett Koop in 1988 and very much in line with the physicalist view. The Office of the Surgeon-General had long been aligned to antismoking and a “smokefree” society, i.e., ideologically compromised.

It was also defined so in 1994 by an “expert panel” very much aligned to antismoking.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319381.300-us-ruling-turns-smokers-into-junkies.html

Some of the benefits of smoking:
Meta-analysis of the acute effects... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
http://diseases-viruses.suite101.com/article.cfm/nicotine_antiinflammatory_h1n1_cure
Smoking is Good For You!* : Discovery News
Carbon monoxide inhibits IL-17-induced IL-6 production through the MAPK pathway in human pulmonary epithelial cells | Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology
Therapeutic Role Found For Carbon Monoxide

Just nicotine is a cognitive enhancer. It aids focus. It’s not surprising that some of the more profound intellectuals, writers, musicians, artists, scientists of the last century were smokers.

The latest that smoking is a habit, not an addiction:
Smoking mind over smoking matter: Surprising new study shows cigarette cravings result from habit, not addiction

Nicotine is not peculiar to tobacco. There are small quantities in potatoes, tomatoes, green peppers, egg plant, and black tea:
MMS: Error

Nicotine is also a precursor of nicotinic acid, also known as niacin or vitamin B3 (NIcotinic ACid vitamIN).

Even the rabidly antismoking Royal College of Physicians has had to concede:
“It is now widely accepted that nicotine is the primary addictive component of tobacco smoke. In recent years, however, it has become clear that the psychobiological mechanisms which mediate the addiction are more complex than they first appeared……….However, the experimental animal data also indicate that, when compared with many other drugs of dependence, the reinforcing properties of nicotine appear relatively weak. Thus, it may be that nicotine alone does not have the powerful addictive properties necessary to account for the highly addictive nature of tobacco smoking, and that addiction to tobacco reflects complex interactions between nicotine, other stimuli associated with the inhalation of tobacco smoke, and possibly other environmental, social or behavioural stimuli associated with smoking.” (p.45, 2007)
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/4fc74817-64c5-4105-951e-38239b09c5db.pdf

A prominent American Tobacco Control advocate recently noted that the idea of “addiction” is highly “flexible” in antismoking circles: “The anti-smoking advocates seem to change the science on whether smoking is a choice or an addiction based on the issue of the day. If the issue is a lawsuit, then smoking is an addiction. If the issue is refusing to hire smokers, then smoking is a choice. If the issue is the FDA regulating nicotine, then smoking is an addiction. If the issue is denying medical care to smokers, then smoking suddenly becomes a choice again.” To which can be added, when it comes to extortionate taxes, smoking suddenly becomes a choice again.
 

Ambient

Full Member
Aug 26, 2011
33
143
Australia
2.
Smoking has numerous aspects – psychological, pharmacological, perceptual, behavioral, social. People smoke for different reasons at different times. Nicotine – just one aspect of smoking – is mild in effect, on a par with caffeine. Once we get beyond a pharmacological effect, we’re no longer talking about “addiction”.

There are two main, interconnected reasons for the “nicotine addiction” myth. Firstly, it serves the deranged antismoking goal of a smokefree world legitimized by a eugenics framework. Smoking is depicted as useless, maintained only by nicotine addiction and where “addiction” is intended in the most derogatory sense of the term. This fosters the idea that smokers are reckless, “intoxicated”, irrational, irresponsible persons. And it is intended to create outrage in particularly nonsmokers. Nonsmokers who allow themselves to be brainwashed by the propaganda then demand protection from irresponsible “addicts”. Even more perverse is the claim that nicotine is “more addictive” than ...... or ........ Such irresponsible, agenda-driven statements trivialize what are profound differences between these substances.

Secondly, the nicotine addiction myth also serves the pharmaceutical cartel. By depicting smoking as due only to nicotine addiction, the pharmaceutical cartel has been able to peddle its nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as the major/only means of quitting smoking. It was fully expected, according to the nicotine addiction model, that people would simply put on a nicotine patch and they would quit smoking. But it doesn’t quite work that way.

The success rate of NRT at one year is 3+% above a 3+% placebo baseline. At one year, NRT has a failure rate of ~97%. At two years, it is even closer to a 100% failure rate. This further and greatly undermines the “nicotine addiction” model.
Nicotine replacement, effective? | BMJ

The pharmaceutical cartel pushes for smoking bans and increased taxes on tobacco by funding antismoking groups. The medical establishment also peddles these essentially useless products. When bans and increased taxes are instituted there is an increase in NRT sales:
Nicotine patch sales rocket in wake of smoking ban - The Scotsman
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...d-patches-as-millions-try-to-quit-456426.html

Knowing that these products are essentially useless, BP has even managed to weasel these products onto taxpayer-funded Pharmaceutical Benefits Schemes, e.g., Australia, Canada, where they are handed out like candy, making even more profits for BP. Worse still, BP has also been allowed to peddle the dangerous drug Champix/Chantix.
Birmingham court to oversee Pfizer lawsuits | al.com
Chantix Worst Offender for Aggression in Drug Study
http://www.bnet.com/blog/drug-busin...pile-up-but-pfizer-isn-8217t-seeing-them/5163

While it is aware of these serious problems, BP is peddling this drug in Japan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/business/global/04smoke.html?_r=1&src=busln

The WHO, a medical organization, is also aligned to Big Pharma in antismoking:
WHO LAUNCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO HELP SMOKERS QUIT
WHO launches partnership with the pharmaceuticals industry to help smokers quit
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,973
San Diego
The “Godber Blueprint” is NOT the book available for download at Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger . The Godber Blueprint is the long web [home] page.

The term “Godber Blueprint” is the name given by the author at this web site to a collection of archival information concerning antismoking activity. It’s detailed information that’s only come to light in the last few years. It’s assumed that the “Blueprint” was associated with Godber’s name because, at the time, he was the most vocal and rabid zealot at the World Conferences on Smoking & Health that the other zealots in attendance looked up to.

The World Conferences occurred through the sponsorship of the World Health Organization. Godber was a WHO representative. Godber has long since died and the WHO continues the <i>de facto</i> prohibition crusade, now administering the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that most countries are signed up to. The “Godber Blueprint” could now be referred to as the “WHO Blueprint”.

Important to note is that the rabid antismoking zealots were making numerous inflammatory claims, e.g., passive smoke “harm” and “social cost” years before any “evidence”, contrived as it eventually was. For example, the first “study” on secondhand smoke was in 1981 by the antismoker, Hirayama – an entirely forced line of enquiry, and 18 years before the flawed, agenda-driven EPA Report (1993) that declared SHS a “danger” to nonsmokers. Also, Godber was referring to smokers as “addicts” in 1975 although tobacco smoking was not considered an addiction at the time. Smoking was incoherently redefined as an “addiction” ( a throwback to 1800s America) in 1988 by the Office of the Surgeon-General that by then had been hijacked by the same antismoking zealots. What we’ve witnessed over the last 30 years is the trash thinking of zealots later “legitimized” by their own trash “research” and peddled through zealot-hijacked organizations – manipulation through “appeal to authority”, e.g., Office of the Surgeon-General.

This is why the information in the Godber Blueprint is critical. It highlights that the current antismoking crusade – like most before – is a moralizing, social engineering, eradication/prohibition crusade, and has been so from the outset. It is the attempt, through denormalizing propaganda, to turn smoking into an “immoral” and “shameful” act not fit for public view. But the antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists recognized in the 1970s that there were few takers for social engineering. Particularly in relatively free societies, including America and the peculiar state of California, coercive measures to conformity were viewed as repugnant by the majority.

The zealots had all sorts of coercive measures in mind – extortionate taxes, smoking bans - indoor and outdoor. But they recognized that the social engineering crusade had all but stalled. They were already talking in the late-70s that the only way forward was to convince nonsmokers that secondhand smoke exposure was a threat to their health despite their being no evidence for such an inflammatory claim.

So, since the 80s we’ve had self-installed social engineers (and their financial partners – government & Big Pharma) telling the public that they weren’t doing social engineering, that they weren’t moralizing, that they weren’t trying to force smokers to quit. They concocted storylines to masquerade their social engineering intent. Extortionate, punitive taxes – well, so their storyline goes, is because smokers are a “cost burden” to society and with concocted reports stating as much. Smoking bans – well, they’re necessary to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. “There’s no slippery slope; we’re not doing social engineering”, squealed the zealots. They’re lies that have been told many times over during the last three decades. And governments around the world got suckered in by the inflammatory rhetoric and the appeal of easy tax money, i.e., license to extort.

It’s only in the last few years that the zealots and their useful-idiot politicians are up front about the moralizing and social engineering, speaking of “denormalization” in glowing terms. For example, this just recently:
“She said allowing the devices (e-cigarettes) into places where cigarettes are now banned also could "renormalize" smoking and undermine the public perception that the habit is now acceptable only in the privacy of one's own home.”
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...ming-on-adding-e-cigarettes.html#.UrT2iHrZiSp

George Godber – 1975: “I imagine that most of us here know full well that our target must be, in the long-term, <b>the elimination of cigarette smoking</b>…… We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where <b>a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults</b>.”
[Remember, this statement was made 6 years before the very first, forced study on secondhand smoke by the antismoker Hirayama and 18 years before the flawed EPA(1993) Report that declared secondhand smoke as a “hazard” to nonsmokers]

Mike Daube has been with the current antismoking crusade from its early days. Here’s an article by Daube of only a year ago (2012) that reiterates the Godber Blueprint:

<i>“Extending restrictions on smoking in any environment so that it essentially becomes a practice only for consenting adults in private.”</i>
Bring on the end of tobacco use
Best post ever, on any forum, in the history of Al Gore's internet.
And I only say that because it is the best post ever, on any forum, in the history of Al Gore's internet.

In fact, I have to keep on rambling, because I seriously have never seen a better post.
Your post is like an arrow that hits the bullseye.

Unfortunately, there are many that don't get it yet.
But they will in time.

Well, anyway, I do hope they get it in time.
 

Completely Average

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 21, 2014
3,997
5,156
Suburbs of Dallas
There is too much wrong with this assessment for me to reply in detail.
We get far less nicotine from ecigs than we did from cigarettes, and that has pretty much been proven throughout the last few years.

There are lots of studies...
And there are lots of vapers with cotinine testing results...


That's great and all, but it doesn't dispute what I said.

I did NOT say ecig users were getting more nicotine that analog users. I said a single puff of ecig vapor contains more nicotine than a single puff of analog smoke. There is a HUGE difference between that and what you're talking about.

Nothing I said has anything to do with the total amount of nicotine ingested by each user, it was merely a comparison of a single puff. When you start looking at blood tests then you're looking at total saturation, which is heavily influenced by how much and how long you use each. A cigarette smoker will take 20-30 puffs in 5 minutes for each cigarette they smoke, most ecig users will either take about a dozen puffs when they would normally have an analog or will take 2-3 puffs every 10-15 minutes throughout the day.

In short, ecig users are simply not taking as many puffs as analog users are. Since they are getting a stronger dose in a single puff they satisfy their cravings faster. Also consider that many smokers occasionally smoke more than they want simply because they feel like they are wasting money if they throw a half-smoked cigarette away while we vapors don't face that dilemma.
 

BCRich2204

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 17, 2014
182
128
Texas

Ambient

Full Member
Aug 26, 2011
33
143
Australia
Allow me to provide a few examples of how zealot nutcases do inflammatory propaganda.

Here’s just one example of some of the inflammatory propaganda inflicted on societies around the world. We’ve all seen some variation of this “information”:

WHAT’S IN A CIGARETTE?
Acetone (nail varnish remover), Ammonia (cleaning agent), Arsenic (ant poison in the USA), Benzene (petrol fumes), Cadmium (car battery fluid), DDT (insecticide), Ethanol (anti-freeze), Formaldehyde (embalming fluid), Hydrogen Cyanide (industrial pollutant), Lead (batteries, petrol fumes), Methanol (rocket fuel), Tar (road surface tar).

Few, however, are familiar with where this nonsense originated. This trick was suggested by Simon Chapman (a prominent Australian antismoker) at the Fifth World Conference on Smoking & Health (1983) while presenting his “manual of underhanded tricks & tactics”, “The Lung Goodbye” (see Godber Blueprint):

“A glance through any copy of the Smoking and Health Bulletin of the U S Department of Health and Human Services shows an entire indexed, section on ‘Tobacco Product Additives’ . Citations are included from patent office registrations of new chemical applications to tobacco processing and from the specialist chemical literature. Both these sources are virtually unintelligible, let alone normally accessible to the average person but are rich in potential for anyone willing to translate them into news items with popular interest . Polysyllabic chemical names should be checked through a reference book that lists common usages and toxicological data for chemicals . Look for usages that will connote revulsion or concern . For example, well known chemicals found in tobacco include cadmium (as in car batteries), ammonia (as in toilet cleaners), cyanides, formaldehyde and so on ……” (p.15)
Legacy Tobacco Documents Library : THE LUNG GOODBYE, A MANUAL OF TACTICS FO... (gjq72f00)

Again, to save reposting here, for more detailed information on what some refer to as the Chapman Trick, see comments by magnetic01 at:
Doctors In Name Only | Frank Davis
.... All | Frank Davis
Tobacco Shoots Up | Frank Davis

You’ll find the Chapman Trick in reports by the Surgeon General. You’ll find it on the CDC website. You’ll see it on a plethora of antismoking websites. That’s how a nonsense is propagated as “fact”, as “science”.

Unfortunately, many e-cig sellers use the Chapman Trick to peddle their own wares. What’s remotely amusing is that e-cig users then get in a great fluster when the trick is used against e-cigs. Again, the nature of the trick is to take some chemical(s) from one circumstance, usually at trace levels, and associate it with its use in an entirely different, irrelevant circumstance, usually by many orders of magnitude. The goal of the trick is to evoke revulsion in the gullible. In the early days, the major chemical targeted in e-cigs was propylene glycol. And the trick was immediately applied –
"As the FDA and others have noted, electronic cigarettes pose a wide variety of potential dangers to users, and perhaps also to those around them, both of whom inhale a mixture of nicotine (a dangerous drug) and propylene glycol (which is used in antifreeze[)] and may cause respiratory tract irritation”
Free Services for PR :: News :: Press Releases

Nowadays, there’s even more to play with. For example,

What’s in an e-cigarette?
Formaldehyde (used in embalming fluid)
Cadmium (used in car batteries)
Acetaldehyde (solvent)
Nickel (used in electroplating)
Lead (neurotoxin)

The way to combat this inflammatory propaganda is to point out where it originated and that the trick is solely intended for its propensity to evoke revulsion. That’s what zealot nutcases are constantly playing upon – negative emotion.
 

Ambient

Full Member
Aug 26, 2011
33
143
Australia
Allow me to provide a few examples of how zealot nutcases do inflammatory propaganda.

Here’s just one example of some of the inflammatory propaganda inflicted on societies around the world. We’ve all seen some variation of this “information”:

WHAT’S IN A CIGARETTE?
Acetone (nail varnish remover), Ammonia (cleaning agent), Arsenic (ant poison in the USA), Benzene (petrol fumes), Cadmium (car battery fluid), DDT (insecticide), Ethanol (anti-freeze), Formaldehyde (embalming fluid), Hydrogen Cyanide (industrial pollutant), Lead (batteries, petrol fumes), Methanol (rocket fuel), Tar (road surface tar).

Few, however, are familiar with where this nonsense originated. This trick was suggested by Simon Chapman (a prominent Australian antismoker) at the Fifth World Conference on Smoking & Health (1983) while presenting his “manual of underhanded tricks & tactics”, “The Lung Goodbye” (see Godber Blueprint):

“A glance through any copy of the Smoking and Health Bulletin of the U S Department of Health and Human Services shows an entire indexed, section on ‘Tobacco Product Additives’ . Citations are included from patent office registrations of new chemical applications to tobacco processing and from the specialist chemical literature. Both these sources are virtually unintelligible, let alone normally accessible to the average person but are rich in potential for anyone willing to translate them into news items with popular interest . Polysyllabic chemical names should be checked through a reference book that lists common usages and toxicological data for chemicals . Look for usages that will connote revulsion or concern . For example, well known chemicals found in tobacco include cadmium (as in car batteries), ammonia (as in toilet cleaners), cyanides, formaldehyde and so on ……” (p.15)
Legacy Tobacco Documents Library : THE LUNG GOODBYE, A MANUAL OF TACTICS FO... (gjq72f00)

Again, to save reposting here, for more detailed information on what some refer to as the Chapman Trick, see comments by magnetic01 at:
Doctors In Name Only | Frank Davis
.... All | Frank Davis
Tobacco Shoots Up | Frank Davis

You’ll find the Chapman Trick in reports by the Surgeon General. You’ll find it on the CDC website. You’ll see it on a plethora of antismoking websites. That’s how a nonsense is propagated as “fact”, as “science”.

Unfortunately, many e-cig sellers use the Chapman Trick to peddle their own wares. What’s remotely amusing is that e-cig users then get in a great fluster when the trick is used against e-cigs. Again, the nature of the trick is to take some chemical(s) from one circumstance, usually at trace levels, and associate it with its use in an entirely different, irrelevant circumstance, usually by many orders of magnitude. The goal of the trick is to evoke revulsion in the gullible. In the early days, the major chemical targeted in e-cigs was propylene glycol. And the trick was immediately applied –
"As the FDA and others have noted, electronic cigarettes pose a wide variety of potential dangers to users, and perhaps also to those around them, both of whom inhale a mixture of nicotine (a dangerous drug) and propylene glycol (which is used in antifreeze[)] and may cause respiratory tract irritation”
Free Services for PR :: News :: Press Releases

Nowadays, there’s even more to play with. For example,

What’s in an e-cigarette?
Formaldehyde (used in embalming fluid)
Cadmium (used in car batteries)
Acetaldehyde (solvent)
Nickel (used in electroplating)
Lead (neurotoxin)

The way to combat this inflammatory propaganda is to point out where it originated and that the trick is solely intended for its propensity to evoke revulsion. That’s what zealot nutcases are constantly playing upon – negative emotion.
 

Ambient

Full Member
Aug 26, 2011
33
143
Australia
Another “strategy” suggested by Chapman in his 1983 presentation of The Lung Goodbye is the “mythological good vs evil drama”:

“Such a list could be added to considerably, but most entries would be characterized by being somehow cast in a mythological good versus evil battle in an arena observed by mass numbers of people. The good (health/clean air/children) versus evil (cancer/uncaring, callous industry) dimension is the ineluctable bottom line in the whole issue and a rich reservoir for spawning a great deal of useful social drama, metaphor, and symbolic politics that is the stuff of ‘news value’ and which is almost always to the detriment of the industry.” p.11

The zealots cast themselves in the role of the “mythological good” (health/clean air/children) battling the “mythological evil” tobacco industry (cancer/uncaring, callous industry). The zealots, being the “mythological good”, are always right, benevolent, and virtuous. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with them is “obviously” wrong, malevolent, and wicked, and most likely, according to the “mythological good” zealots, a shill….. an emissary of the “mythological evil” tobacco industry.

It’s all contrived. In more common parlance, this is zealots with a “god complex” – delusions of benevolence, omniscience, and infallibility – playing a common, garden-variety, self-serving smear routine. This framing of the issue in “good vs evil” terms has allowed the zealots to shut down most criticism over decades. Again, it needs to be pointed out to as many that will listen that this “framing of the issue” is a self-serving contrivance.
 

Ambient

Full Member
Aug 26, 2011
33
143
Australia
A little more on the traits of the zealot mentality. Consider anti-alcohol of early last century. Here’s an article addressing “10 Outrageous Claims Made By The Temperance Movement”
10 Outrageous Claims Made By The Temperance Movement - Listverse

These nutcases were allowed to “teach” this thought-addling trash to children in schools. Further, these anti-alcohol fanatics were also anti-tobacco, making numerous absurd claims about tobacco use too. And the more influential Eugenics Movement was as anti-alcohol/tobacco.

Frank Davis’ latest thread addresses this very point of fanatics/zealots/extremists terribly exaggerating information – or plainly making up claims – to push for their deranged goal:
The End Justifies The Means | Frank Davis
And they believe it’s all fine. It’s all political activism of the worst kind masqueraded as “science” and “scholarship”. There’s more than ample evidence over the last few centuries that moralizing zealots are suffering a mental disorder made up of a cluster of dysfunction, e.g., acute fixation (monomania), obsession with control (megalomania), Narcissism, neuroses, bigotry, a “god complex” – delusions of benevolence and omniscience. And all of these are held together with pathological lying. Only worse is the partnering of zealots and financial interests which introduces greed into the mix. And zealots never – never – accept any responsibility for detrimental consequences from their insane attempts at social engineering.
 

Ambient

Full Member
Aug 26, 2011
33
143
Australia
In all of the antismoking crusades of the last few centuries, there is one common thread – incessant lying. There is no lie too big for antismoking zealots in attempting to force their deranged agenda into law. The lies are temporarily accepted through “appeal to authority” (argumentum ad verecundiam). All antismoking crusades involve lies promoted as fact through abuse of authority, e.g., abuse of monarchy (King James, King Murad), abuse of religious authority (Temperance groups), abuse of medical authority (Eugenics).

Again, to save reposting here, please see the series of comments by “magnetic01” entitled “A Short Study on Argumentum Ad Verecundiam” at
I Don’t Believe Them | Frank Davis
 

Ambient

Full Member
Aug 26, 2011
33
143
Australia
Hello...

Are you saying passive smoking isn't harmful?

Can you provide either some evidence, or even an example of a scientific fraud of a similar scale ever happening in the history of modern science?

gm, if you’re asking that question, making that demand – for “evidence”, and in that tone, then either you haven’t read the considerable information (including links) I’ve provided or you’ve read it and not understood any of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread