Victoria Hardy
August 29, 2008

I´m trying to live a healthier life these days, although there are certainly mixed messages out there about what constitutes healthful living. Over the last years I´ve began to remove chemicals, or at least as many as I am able, from my system. I quit all prescriptions, rarely take any over the counter medications and avoid doctors. I´ve had all my silver amalgam fillings removed and stopped using fluoridated toothpaste. I rarely drink soda and I have given up all forms of chemical laced artificial sweeteners. I get my water at a spring, my meat, eggs and butter at an independent farm, make a special trip to the closest organic store for produce and eat very little processed foods. And I may use a cell phone 3 or 4 times a year, but with all those changes, I still smoke.

Some have said that it is ridiculous to change so many things, yet continue to smoke, but I don´t know that that is truth. I know it is "common" and accepted knowledge that smoking kills, but I also know there are a lot of accepted truths out there that aren´t really true, so it leaves one to wonder. Our government spends an awful lot of money to discourage smoking and smoking bans have gotten so invasive that now even some renters are not allowed to smoke in their homes. Both my curse and my blessing in this life is that I like things to make sense and it´s hard for me to see sense in a society that seeks to ban cigarette smoking, yet approves of aspartame, fluoride, mercury and overwhelming amounts of pharmaceuticals. It´s hard for me to understand how my little cigarette in an outdoor café will cause more damage to those around me than the exhaust from hundreds of cars and trucks passing by on the street. Or how a cigarette can cause more damage to those around me than the smoke stacks spewing God knows what into the air or the air "fresheners" and perfumes being pumped into shopping facilities or the chemicals in foods or the impurities in water.

But smokers have become the new leper and it is a hate that is shared by many, an approved hate. And interestingly enough, the Nazi Party imposed the most successful modern day smoking ban when Hitler (an ex-smoker) decided smokers did not fit into his ideal of the Master Race. The Nazis were also the first to really delve into the connection between cancer and smoking, but were their discoveries complete truth or were they just another tool in a long line of propaganda? The first American smoking ban can be attributed to the era of puritanical rule in Massachusetts in 1632, you know, the same state where hanging witches became hip for a time.

Of course, I am aware of the reactions this article with bring about, the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke are pushed heavily by all media and we accept it without question. It is said that there are 400,000 premature deaths caused by smoking in the United States per year, but did you know that if a smoker dies at 92, it is still considered premature because he smoked? In an analysis of ages of those 400,000 deaths computed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) SAMMEC (Smoking Attributable Mortality, Morbidity and Economic Costs) program shows some interesting numbers. Smoking "victims" lived longer than non-smokers, by about 2 years - 71.9 vs. 70. Over 70,000, 17% died "prematurely" at ages greater than 85. Only 1900, or 0.5% of smoking "victims" died at ages less than 35, while 143,000, or 8% of non-smokers died at ages less than 35, mostly due to auto accidents and drug abuse. Forces

Of course, we all have seen the pictures of blackened lungs attributed to smoking, but according to those who perform autopsies; it is not possible to tell by examining the lungs whether or not the deceased was a smoker. Upon resection, the lungs are usually clear unless the deceased lived in a large city with significant amounts of industrial pollution. When asked if a surgeon, at autopsy, could determine if the lungs were those of a smoker, pathologist Ed Uthman, M.D. stated, "I don't think one can tell if the deceased were a tobacco smoker or not by the appearance of the lungs. The absence of any black pigment suggests that the person was either a nonsmoker or a very light smoker. Heavy black pigmentation suggests that the person was either a heavy smoker, or lived in a city with heavy particulate air pollution, or was a coal miner, or some combination of the three. The black pigment in question is elemental carbon, which most investigators believe to be inert in its effects on the lungs (although in the extremely heavy doses that coal miners used to get, it may have had a partial role in coal-workers' lung disease)." Smoking Myths

It is well known that smoking causes cancer, we accept it as fact, but what is rarely discussed is that 70% of cancers occur in non-smokers. The National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health report in the 1995 Information Please Almanac states that only 30% of cancers can be traced to smoking. Japan and South Korea are listed by the United Nations as number one and two for tobacco consumption, but they are also listed as one and two for life expectancy. According to literature from the American Cancer Society lung cancer is primarily a condition of old age, with the onset of symptoms occurring around the age of 65. And in the most interesting stats during the years 1973 – 1994 annual per capita consumption of cigarettes fell from 4,148 to 2,493, but in the same period of time the incidence of lung and bronchial cancer rose from 42.5 to 57.1 cases per 100,000 population. Smoking Aloud

It seems the anti-smoking lobby has made little mention of the recent studies that show a reduced risk, by as much as 50%, of Parkinson´s disease in smokers or that 75% of those that die of heart disease are non-smokers. Other studies have shown that smoking does not cause breast cancer, 90% of ulcerative colitis sufferers are non-smokers, and that as smoking has been reduced, childhood asthma has increased. Also some studies indicate that nicotine may alleviate Tourettes Syndrome and prevent Alzheimer´s by stimulating the nicotinic receptors in the brain assisting memory. Evidence Archive

Well, you may utter, you can kill yourself with those coffin nails, but you´re not going to kill me with your second hand, passive smoke. Well, another little known fact is that the term "passive smoke" also originated with the Nazis during their fascist régime and desire for the Master Race. And now that the EPA has stepped in, secondhand smoke and passive smoking are now known as "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" or ETS and we are told that minimal contact with such pollution can be deadly. The House Committee on Agriculture, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Congressional Research Service reviewed the EPA report that announced the dangers of ETS and all determined that the facts were cherry-picked and perhaps motivated by political agendas.

A long term WHO (World Health Organization) study on ETS which has seemingly been suppressed in the United States showed no significant increased risk of lung cancers in those exposed to passive smoking. This study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90, No. 19, October 7, 1998 showed no elevated risk in children or spouses exposed to ETS. And in the case of children exposed to ETS the only significant finding was a negative correlation, indicating a statistically decreased risk of lung cancer. There have been many studies that show the same conclusions, but somehow these ideas seem outrageous to us now that the propaganda machine has so effectively done its job. Wisp Of Smoke

An interesting statistic that has some questioning the dangers of smoking is the fact that countries with the highest number of smokers have the lowest numbers of lung cancer. Others contend that smoking increases longevity and point out that many of the world´s oldest people are smokers. And still others suggest that the increase in cancers has nothing to do with tobacco, but is connected to the nuclear testing done in Nevada in the 1940s and 1950s and to avoid lawsuits the government needed to find a scapegoat. It has even been suggested that it is not smoking that kills, but quitting smoking, acknowledging the number of lung cancers that develop in those who have recently quit.

It´s no secret that pharmaceutical companies benefit from the anti-smoking agenda, pushing gums, pills and patches to assist quitting and the government rakes in those extra tax dollars paid for by smokers. And now, of course, insurance companies want to increase the rates for those with "unhealthy" lifestyles and companies are refusing to hire smokers. So what happens if everyone quits smoking? Will the government, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies accept a loss or will they just invent another "health crisis" to tax, create cures for and protect us from? What will it be next time, the exhaust from a car? Beer, wine or whiskey? Cell phones? Fast food? Pet ownership? Make-up and perfume?

What many fail to see is that smoking bans are not about our health, if it were about our health there would not be chemicals in our foods, genetically modified seeds, growth hormones in our diary, waste products in our water, mercury in vaccines or metals in skin care products. No, smoking bans are about loss of individual freedoms, control of the masses and profit for those in charge and we have accepted it due to overwhelming amounts of propaganda. We live in America where we are supposed to be free, free to live our lives how we see fit. Some want to jump out of airplanes, others choose to surf on huge ocean waves, some enjoy flying down a snow covered mountain, drinking alcohol, hiking in bear territory, riding bicycles along crowded highways, becoming a soldier, having a child and all these endeavors are capable of shortening one´s life, yet we are free to enjoy those pursuits without discrimination, the same should be said for smoking. So while many support the smoking bans and feel free to chastise, name call, approach and attempt to convert smokers, it should be kept in mind that next time it may something you enjoy that is banned.

Original Link: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/72542