Believe Whatever You Want

Over at the E-Cigarettes Politics blog, tobacco harm reduction advocate Chris Price postulates on what it means to save a life. His piece, which is tagged with "bitter and defeated smokers," references and aims to provide a counter-response to my recent post, Class Warfare and Saving Lives. Chris calls me a "smoking advocate" and I believe that Chris misunderstands where I'm coming from, so I will attempt to set the record straight below. He also draws several parallels in respect of saving lives, and I believe those analogies don't fit well, so I will also cover that.

So let's begin with the paragraph that describes his view of me and of other smokers.

The blogger Liz refers to is a smoking advocate and speaks from a smoker's point of view. I don't blame him at all, he is entitled to his opinion; clearly he is extremely jealous of the progress made by the ecig community, so tiny (about 8 or 9% of them currently) compared to the smokers, who were powerless to protect themselves (or made a terrible job of it, depending on your point of view). Their bitterness at their own impotence tends to be transferred onto everyone else; and, to be honest, perhaps I'd feel the same way if I had 25% of the population to work with and still failed utterly. But everyone has an agenda and you need to look at who is bringing you the message before you know what the message is worth. This is why propaganda is so very powerful: it is a message brought to you with a smiling face by a cleverly camouflaged liar, sometimes unaware of the fact, working for someone else (industries that profit from the lie fund the liar; a perfect example is tobacco control and pharma).

My response to this is that I'm not a "smoking advocate" -- I don't care if someone smokes or does not. Please read my blog post "I'm Pro-MYOFB":

Semantically, "pro-smoker" is also incorrect. I don't identify as a pro-smoker. I identify myself as "pro-Mind Your Own Fucking Business." I'm pro-MYOFB. I don't care if you smoke or don't. I don't care if you drink or not. I don't care who you sleep with or what you do for work. It's your life to live as best as you see fit. It's not mine. Who am I to tell you what to do or how to live?

Furthermore, I'm not at all jealous of the vaping community or any of the progress made. I sincerely want vapers to be able to use their products without prohibitions or interference from nannying tyrants and governments. What I feel is disappointment that a vocal minority of vapers have co-opted the tobacco control industry's rhetoric and propaganda to advocate for e-cigarettes, and by doing so are (perhaps unwittingly) also demonising smoking and smokers. I find such acts to be incredibly distasteful, and I cannot support any person, organisation or company who does this. Rest assured, it's not jealousy that I feel. I may be bitter, however, but not for the reasons you presume.

In respect of the statements made about smokers, I believe you have it mostly wrong again, Chris. Smokers (and businesses) were deceived by the tobacco control industry and the Labour government. We were told that pubs would be excluded from the public smoking ban, and when the law was passed, to everybody's surprise (except for tobacco control nutjobs), there were no exclusions for pubs. It's not that we were or are powerless or impotent -- we were tricked. The reason why smokers do not organise is because we all come from different classes, different points of view, different backgrounds. We're not a group. We are people who smoke -- most smokers do not identify as "smoker." I think you mis-characterise smokers -- I do not find such language helpful or appropriate for tobacco harm reduction advocates.

That said, many smokers feel guilty about smoking, because the tobacco control industry has for decades told smokers that they are bad people unless they quit smoking, that we will die unless we quit smoking, that smokers are killing unborn foetuses and young children, that we are helpless addicts, that smokers are stinky, unclean and unfit for their enlightened society where everyone can live forever if only you do precisely as Public Health advises. After a time, after ceaselessly being told how worthless you are because you're a smoker, is it any surprise that people begin to believe it? They believe all of the propaganda that second-hand smoke kills, and that the magical substance third-hand smoke kills. And they believe that smoking will give them a "premature death."  So faced with all of that guilt, the knowledge that smokers are responsible for every last disease and death on the planet, many smokers simply do not wish to associate themselves with other smokers or a "pro-smoking" movement. Smokers know that the mainstream media and our governments hate them, and that these days it is perfectly acceptable to verbally attack, denigrate, shame, and in some cases even physically assault smokers at every opportunity -- all of these things thanks to some truly misguided people in Public Health, activist doctors, and the tobacco control industry who have encouraged it, wittingly or otherwise.

Let me show an example of the latest anti-smoker propaganda (with thanks to Jan Johnson for sharing it with me), where a smoker's mouth is replaced with an anus:

"Death as a rationale is getting worn out and young people need to meet other messages to stop, think and listen."
Source: http://dailyoftheday.com/new-anti-smoking-ad-features-a-butthole-mouth/

That's what smokers are up against every day -- truly despicable people who hate smokers so much that they would create ugly and hurtful propaganda like this. Keep in mind, the target audience for this propaganda is young teenagers. Do let me know if you think this kind of propaganda is acceptable, Chris.

Let's move on to the subject of saving lives.

The phrase 'to save life' means exactly that, to everyone, under all circumstances. For example if a firefighter pulls you unconscious out of a burning building, they saved your life. If a lifeboat crew pull you off a sinking ship in the middle of nowhere, they saved your life. If a surgeon operates on you and fixes an aortal aneurism, then the operating theatre team saved your life. Or maybe you think they didn't? To 'save your life' means to prevent death at that point (and postpone it to a later date). That's what it means.

Actually, no, the phrase "to save life" doesn't mean exactly that under all circumstances. This is where semantics come in. For instance, if somebody helps me with something and I say, "Thanks, mate, you saved my life!" would anybody take that to be a literal statement?  I think not.

As for the examples you gave, those are indeed lives saved, but -- and this is an important distinction -- they are lives saved from "imminent death" if no actions were taken. There's a huge difference between acts to save someone from imminent death and acts taken to possibly prevent a death of some kind at some unknown future time.

Because you don't know when you're going to die. You don't know what the cause of your death will be. So how can you say that a life has been saved by switching to e-cigarettes instead of continuing to smoke? How can you ever prove that e-cigs even extended your life? You cannot, because even if a person lives to be 110-years-old, you can never be certain that quitting smoking and using e-cigs made that happen. You can believe it to be true, but that doesn't make it fact.

Let me put it another way. A smoker is diagnosed with lung cancer. Will e-cigarettes save that person now? No, they won't. And for the absurd comparison, if I am unconscious in a burning house, will giving me an e-cigarette save my life?  No, it won't. In what scenario is it proven that e-cigarettes will definitely save anybody? There are none. When people say "e-cigs save lives" what they are actually saying is "e-cigs may reduce the relative risks of getting certain diseases that may be caused by smoking, thus possibly extending your life by some unknown amount of time."  That's all you are saying. You can reduce the relative risk of getting certain diseases, but you have no idea whether you would get those diseases if you continued to smoke. You have no idea when you might get those diseases, and you have no idea if even those diseases will ultimately kill you if you do get them.

And indeed, that is all that the tobacco control industry is saying when they claim that "quitting smoking will save your life."  It's a confidence trick designed to exploit your natural fear of death. There are risks to everything that we do, some of them have the potential to harm you. It's up to you to decide the pros and cons of taking those risks.

If you switch to ecigs and don't die 10 years early from continuing to smoke, then ecigs saved your life - that's all there is to it.

You can say e-cigs save lives all you like, but it doesn't make it a fact. It's conjecture. It's speculation. It's betting on a possible outcome in an unknown future. How do you know it was an  early death? Upon what basis do you define an early death? You aren't guaranteed any amount of time on this planet. Some people live to be very old, and others die moments after birth. In between all of these tragic deaths there is an average age of death, but that's only a numerical figure, not a guarantee, not a promise. But if it helps you to get through your day, believe whatever you like.

The other issue here, which nobody ever discusses but they should, is that some deaths are better than other deaths. That's the real issue, to be honest. Anti-smokers are saying that if you die from cancer, or heart disease, it was a bad death caused by your bad choices as a smoker. Actually, they say Big Tobacco killed you. The truth is, all death is equal. It's just death.

But a slow, lingering and painful death frightens the hell out of all us. Does it not? It's not only frightening for the person dying, it's frightening for his family, too. Nobody wants to die like that. One could make a good argument that nobody has to die like that, but our governments have decided that you do not have the right to determine the manner of your death. So, thanks to people who know best for us, we're forced to linger on, waiting, in pain, and suffering.

Certainly, some people choose to linger this way, hoping they will be saved, or perhaps simply afraid to die. That is their choice. Sometimes, families are unable to let their loved ones go, so the family insists on keeping their loved ones alive for as long as possible, in some cases against the wishes of the person who is dying.

So the question is not whether e-cigs save lives. The questions are: "What should we die from? When should we die?"

I await the answers to those questions.

Two Questions You Should Always Ask When Dealing With Professional Anti-Smokers

This will be brief.*

(*No, it won't.)

I'm always a bit disappointed any time I read, watch or listen to a programme that has people arguing for smokers' rights (pro-liberty / pro-MYOFB) and against smokers (e.g. tobacco control / public health prohibitionists).  This is my problem, obviously.  The reason I feel disappointed is that there are only two questions pro-liberty people really need to ask the public health prohibitionists, and I'll come to those shortly.

But what happens during these "debates" is that the pro-liberty folk want to challenge the clearly bogus tobacco control-invented stats and studies with actual facts, and that -- 80% of the time* -- will lead to the pro-liberty person(s) losing the argument in the court of public opinion. (*I just made that up.)

Why? Because most people don't care about facts. Not as much you do. Oh, they say they do, but they truly do not. What they want most is for people to tell them what to think, to tell them what the right answer is, to tell them what to believe.  That is why "propaganda" exists (and hundreds of religions).  It doesn't need to be truthful -- it only needs to sound like it's true. Plausibility is vital for selling your brand of propaganda.  If you give average citizens truly useful information and facts, most of the time they aren't interested. It's too complicated. That's why there are scientists and academics to figure this stuff out, they'll mutter.  The public does not care about facts -- what they and the press are interested in are sound bites. Catchy phrases. Things they can remember easily, so they can repeat them to their friends, family and colleagues to try to sound clever and knowledgeable.

"Hey, Mary," said Bob. "I was just listening to BBC Radio and did you know that smoking kills half of its long-term users?  It's true. I heard it on the radio. Don't ever smoke, because you'll die 'from smoking.' It's like guaranteed at 100%."

"That's great, Bob. I'll remember that," Mary said, and nods appreciatively.  "Did you see Coronation Street last night?"

"Of course. I never miss an episode.  Good show, eh?"

And this is your typical at-the-office conversation. There's no substance, only banter. But the message Bob heard on BBC Radio stuck and he shared it.  "Half of long-term smokers will DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE! THEY WILL ALL DIE from SMOKING!  SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, MARY! OH GOD, THE CHILDREN! WHO WILL THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

Whilst completely bollocks, as propaganda the "half of long-term smokers" thing is certainly a beautiful piece of work.  You have to admire its simplicity. It exploits everybody's natural fear of death and kindly informs you that 50% of smokers will die. Like flipping a coin. But the subliminal message, or subtext rather, is that ALL smokers will die.

And that's true. All smokers will die. Eventually.  But not "from smoking."  In fact, there is no official cause of death for "From Smoking."  So, truthfully, and scientifically, nobody ever has died "FROM SMOKING tobacco."  Well, maybe someone lit up a cigarette and immediately died from smoking just that one cigarette. But if that ever happened, nobody has a record of it.

Now whether smoking tobacco is a cause for every last disease a human being can suffer from is another matter not worth covering in this post (nor covering in the comments, thank you).  We'll leave that one to the professional anti-smokers.

So, if you're going to challenge the anti-smokers in some debate with a moderator who already doesn't give a shit what you think and doesn't like smoking himself, then you need to be able to propagandise at their level. Because if you don't, you may have won the argument in the technical sense, but you still lost the debate.

That isn't to say that facts are not important or that you shouldn't challenge bogus statements. Absolutely you should. But you have to balance that with your own propaganda.

Now good propaganda isn't that hard to come by, but it takes a lot of work and finesse to come up with something that will stick. That's your job, debaters. You need to come up with something clever and memorable. Something you can repeat often and out-propagandise the propagandists.  It should also be true. Because tobacco control is all about lies and half-truths.  Your propaganda then must be factual.

I aim to help a bit.  And that's where the "Two questions you should always ask when dealing with professional anti-smokers" comes into play.  Ready?

1.  What should I die from?

2.  And when should I die?  (age)

That's it. You need to always ask these questions to Public Health and anyone else who wants to save you from smoking and drinking and gambling for that matter.

Be patient. Wait for the answer.  If they do not answer, if they use the classic evasion technique of asking another question to you instead, or try to spew out more bogus stats and other propaganda to support their hateful bigoted cause, then you have to persist and re-ask those two questions. And if they still do not answer, you then turn to the audience and you ask them the question.  It's important you do this last bit. Because the audience will definitely remember it. They will never forget it. You will have planted that one seed of doubt in their mind that something is amiss. Trust me on this. They won't know what it is at first, but they'll remember the questions. And it will stick.

And you should ask these questions on websites in the comments (expect hateful responses from anti-smoking trolls -- I get "you should die an early death from cancer" all the time. People suck in no large measure -- only anti-smoking, socialist, public health nutters would wish a cancerous death on anyone who doesn't conform to their belief systems. Which is why they're evil fucking bastards).

And you should ask these two questions when family or friends tsk-tsk about your smoking or tell you to quit.  You can also add that if you want to quit, then you will quit smoking. It's your choice.

And you need to remember these two questions, and you must never forget to ask them.  It's important. You might not think it matters, but it does matter a great deal.

Because they are both perfectly legitimate questions to ask the people in Public Health. They talk about premature death. Fine. What isn't premature? When should I die? And what should I die from?

You need to be relentless about this.  Make them answer the questions, if you can.

These are the only two questions you should always remember to ask during a debate.  You can then go back to your stats and facts to your heart's content. These two questions work for almost anything by the way, not just tobacco control. Got an alcohol prohibitionist to deal with? Ask them.

But please ask them. Until it sticks. Don't expect answers. But if you get any, please share them, publicly. Because that will be entertaining.

I asked these two questions again today, for like the billionth time.  This time it was during a tweeted conversation between Ailsa Rutter and me.  It went like this:

Click to enlargify

I'm still waiting for Ailsa Rutter to reply.

And if you've asked the questions and you need to deal with the non-professional anti-smoker joe on-the-street type who likes to do the fake cough thing, then I would suggest something akin to Leg-Iron's witty repartee, which you can read (or reread) over and over again and always laugh hysterically. 

The Consultation

The plain packs consultation is up here: http://consultations.dh.gov.uk/tobacco/standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products/consult_view

I've only had a brief chance to peruse it, so I will come back later and give my thoughts on it.  I did notice a couple of leading questions, and the whole preamble looks like it was written by tobacco control. 

Smokercide

It is appalling how many anti-smokers want smokers to die.  Tobacco control fanatics are not interested in helping anyone but themselves; they are only interested in furthering their hate campaign against adults who smoke.  Anti-smoker propaganda is disseminated to today's children with religious fervour -- "Believe and accept our faith and everlasting life will be yours," they preach from their pulpits of faux morality.  They know that the only way forward is to socially-engineer the children to believe in hate over tolerance.  It is a relentless crusade, one that exploits a natural instinct to protect your offspring at all costs, and so the crusade goes mostly unchallenged, for who would want children to be harmed?  The result is an army of kids wearing khaki shirts who are true believers, because it is all they have ever been told.  They grow up and become unwitting participants in a culture of hate, because it is all they have ever known.

People often say that you lose an argument the moment you call someone a fascist or a Nazi.  And that may be true when it's done to end an argument you want nothing more to do with, and if you give no supporting evidence to back up that claim.  The reason people say you've lost, however, is because of the grotesque and almost unimaginable acts that happened before and during WWII.  We all know what happened.  We all know how it happened.  We even know why it happened.  Even now, few people want to talk about it or even think about it. It's repulsive. But in order to truly understand it, you need to ask some very uncomfortable questions about what people are capable of doing to other people.  You need to ask yourself those very same questions.  What are you capable of doing to support your beliefs, your causes, your crusades?

And it's an answer that is almost impossible to accept.  The truth is that some people are capable of doing anything.  Maybe most people, given the right belief system, event or circumstance.  What does that really say about us?  Are we all monsters or are we simply sheep?

There are those out there who would wish great harm on smokers.  These are people who are capable of justifying any act, no matter how terrible that act is, to support their cause.  There are no boundaries for them.  Everything and every one of us is fair game.  They will attack any one who does not believe, or who gives comfort or support to their enemies.  You shall know them by their fruits. And that fruit is ever-so-rotten.

I call it Smokercide. 

What do you call it?

There Is No Such Thing As Premature Death

Two questions I wish someone -- anyone -- would ask tobacco control advocates are:

• What should I die of?
• When should I die (i.e., at what age should we accept as having lived a full, complete life)?

These are, of course, unfair questions. They are unanswerable, particularly in a moral sense.  If you advocate for a particular acceptable age of death, then you are possibly saying that after that age, your life has no value.

Death comes in many forms, at any time.  Newborns sometimes die moments after birth.  Some people live to be over 100-years-old -- some of those people were... smokers.  I know, unbelievable.  So while the questions are unfair, they should nevertheless be posed.

Because there is no such thing as a premature death. It is, simply, the time of one's death.  You are not guaranteed any length of time here on this planet.  There is no guarantee that some crazed lunatic won't murder you while you sleep.  And if you do get murdered, as tragic as that is, it is still the time of your death.  It wasn't premature.  It may not even have been preventable, depending on the circumstances.  It may simply be fate.