Frank Davis

Banging on about the Smoking Ban

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
I first heard about the prospect of the smoking ban early in November 2004 when Sir Charles George, head of the BMA and BHF, called on the government to introduce a comprehensive ban. A few weeks later,

On 16 November 2004 a Public Health white paper proposed a smoking ban in almost all public places in England. Smoking restrictions would be phased in, with a ban on smoking in NHS and government buildings by 2006, in enclosed public places by 2007, and pubs, bars and restaurants (except pubs not serving food) by the end of 2008

At the time I was completely unaware that, a few months earlier, on 16 June 2004, Britain became a signatory to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. A few weeks later, on 16 November 2004, Britain ratified this binding treaty, which committed Britain to a variety of tobacco control measures, including price and tax measures to reduce the demand for tobacco, measures to protect against exposure to tobacco smoke, regulation of contents, packaging, labelling, advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products, and education and training about tobacco.

Britain was by no means the only signatory. Most countries in the world signed up to it, as may be seen from the map below.

FCTC map
FCTC map
Green: countries that have signed and ratified. Green-speckled: countries which have acceded. Pink: countries which have signed but not ratified. Grey: countries which have neither signed nor ratified.
The foreword of this Orwellian document reads:

The WHO FCTC was developed in response to the globalization of the tobacco epidemic.

This is NewSpeak that twists the very meaning of words. For there can be no such thing as a tobacco "epidemic". Tobacco is a plant, not a disease.

I'd like to draw attention to one innocuous-seeming article in the Convention.

5.3. In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.

A further WHO publication (dug up by Rose) provides guidelines on article 5.3, which include the following Guiding Principle:

Principle 1: There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health policy interests.

13. The tobacco industry produces and promotes a product that has been proven
scientifically to be addictive, to cause disease and death and to give rise to a variety of social ills, including increased poverty. Therefore, Parties should protect the formulation and implementation of public health policies for tobacco control from the tobacco industry to the greatest extent possible.

I'm not sure which scientific papers "proved" that tobacco is addictive. It's more often claimed about nicotine, one of the components of tobacco. Nor am I sure, after weeks of debate on this blog, whether tobacco causes disease and death. And I entirely fail to see how tobacco gives rise to poverty.

What does seem clear, however, is that this guiding principle could have tobacco crossed out and replaced with more or less anything else. For example, whisky, chocolate, butter. After all, in the case of whisky, people can drink themselves to death far more quickly than they can smoke themselves to death. And alcoholism has long been recognised as an addiction. And people can spend all their money on whisky, and impoverish themselves in the process.

But that's an unimportant aside. The guidelines also state that parties “need to be alert to any efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine or subvert tobacco control efforts and the need to be informed of activities of the tobacco industry that have a negative impact on tobacco control efforts”. and that “in setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law”. And in point 11 they state:

The measures recommended in these guidelines aim at protecting against interference not only by the tobacco industry but also, as appropriate, by organizations and individuals that work to further the interests of the tobacco industry.

What all this means is that the legislation cannot be allowed to be "subverted" or "interfered with" by not just the tobacco industry, but organisations or individuals who further the interests of the tobacco industry.

And "individuals" means me. Or anybody else who objects to smoking bans. Because obviously, while any lifting such bans would obviously further the interests of smokers, it would also further the interests of the tobacco companies whose products they consume.

As I understand it, what this means is that any representations made by anybody in opposition to any of the provisions of the Convention cannot be allowed to influence, or "subvert" or "interfere with" its provisions.

All protest must be ignored. The treaty requires it.

And perhaps this explains why the British government simply won't consider any relaxation of the ban. They are bound by treaty not to do so. Which was maybe why Nick Clegg said that any amendment of the ban was about as likely as bringing back the death penalty.

It may also explain why tobacco retailers were completely ignored when display bans were publicly discussed.

It's how things are done these days. Some minister obviously scuttled off to Geneva to sign the Convention, much in the way that Gordon Brown scurried to Lisbon to sign the new European Constitution, also known as the Lisbon Treaty. There's probably another equally binding agreement about climate change. And all of them discussed and agreed and signed and ratified in semi-secrecy. And none of the peoples to whom they apply consulted about any of it.

There are some chinks of light, though. The USA has not ratified the treaty, and so it is not bound by its provisions. Nor has Switzerland and the Czech republic. And Andorra and Liechtenstein and Monaco are not even signatories. And article 31 of the Convention allows withdrawal from it.

Perhaps the last word should be left to a Spanish blog a day or so back:

"Las leyes injustas simplemente han de ser infringidas. Una sociedad virtuosa a punta de pistola, solo es una sociedad de borregos y esclavos."

which means: "Unjust laws simply must be broken. A society made virtuous at the point of a gun is just a society of sheep and slaves."

  • 1

The FCTC reflects long-held views by the WHO. This is a comment by George Godber (Chairman, Expert Committee on Smoking and Health, World Health Organization) in his opening address at the WHO-sponsored World Health Conference on Smoking and Health in 1975.

“Every smoker is a promoter of other smokers. The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.”

The [eugenics] view is that smoking is anti-social and a habit that nonsmokers should not have to endure. And no-one should be permitted to suggest otherwise.

Some other comments by George (a WHO rep) at the same conference. Bear in mind that these comments (which were summarized as policy) is 6 years before the first study on secondhand smoke – a severely flawed study conducted by another rabid, conference-attending antismoker, Hirayama (1981) – and 17 years before the later discredited EPA, 1992/3, i.e., this smoking-eradication policy was set well before the questionable idea of “secondhand smoke danger”:

“In 1969, the World Health Organization Regional Committee for Europe and the Americas had passed resolutions calling attention to the dangers of smoking and deciding that smoking would not be allowed during their meetings.”

“None of us can be really satisfied with what we find anywhere. Yet there has been progress sufficient to make one feel that THIS world conference will have an even clearer message for the world and will be able to endorse and amplify the views expressed at the World Health Assembly in Geneva last month.”

“I imagine that most of us here know full well that our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking…… We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults.”

“First, I think we must ask ourselves whether our society is one in which the major influences exercised on public opinion are such as would convey the impression that smoking is a dirty, anti-social practice, spoiling the enjoyment of youth and accelerating the onset of the deterioration of age.”

“Need there really be any difficulty about prohibiting smoking in more public places? The nicotine addicts would be petulant for a while, but why should we accord them any right to make the innocent suffer?”

“…..described the way in which education against smoking was to be incorporated into the general programme of health education which is so well presented in the USSR.”

Every smoker is a promoter of other smokers. The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.”

If we start with the view that we can begin to get rid of cigarette smoking from many communal occasions and that we can and should make it more and more difficult for the individual to smoke cigarettes in public, and if we can eliminate the false message of the advertisers, I believe we could have a rapidly cumulative effect….. There are plenty of weapons of persuasion, of restriction, of financial penalty by price and tax increases with which we could seriously hope to reduce the consumption of cigarettes by a substantial portion within 5 years.”

A longer-term target would make cigarette smoking an undesirable and private activity within ten years after that.”


The nicotine addicts would be petulant for a while,

I can't help but think that, when the Book of Common Prayer was imposed on all churches in England in 1549, the new Protestant authorities were quite sure that "the Catholicism addicts would be petulant for a while," but would eventually "get used to it".


Eugenics was mainstream in the USA late-1800s to post-WWII. Antismoking figured highly. Eugenics (and antismoking, anti-alcohol) was financed/supported by mega-wealth, e.g., Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, Kellogg. Organizations such as the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, the American Lung Association, were Rockefeller creations during this eugenics mainstream. Eugenics was mainstream in Nazi Germany. Antismoking figured highly. Nazi eugenics was supported by the same American mega-wealth.

Post-WWII, the United Nations was formed. Rockefeller (the lineage has long been committed to eugenics) donated the land for the UN building in NY. Two major agencies of the UN – the World Health Organization and UNESCO – were formed. George Brock Chisholm, a Canadian Army MD (psychiatrist) and eugenicist, headed the World Health Organization; Julian Huxley, biologist/zoologist and a eugenicist, headed UNESCO. These eugenicists defined a eugenics foundation for these organizations.

The current antismoking crusade was set in motion by George Godber, a WHO representative, the World Health Organization, and the American Cancer Society. Godber depicts those that smoke as just addicts, dismissed as “persons of no consequence”. The superficiality (biological reductionism), contempt and “remediation” are standard eugenics-speak. A self-installed “elite” declares that it knows how the world functions (and how it should function) and there is no place for tobacco use in the eugenics-defined “utopia”.

In the last 50 years the particular agencies of the WHO and UNESCO have infiltrated most countries on earth with all manner of [eugenic] “strategies”, “programs”, and “initiatives”, primarily through Public Health. The medical establishment (including front groups such as cancer societies, heart foundations) has direct access to federal, state, and local governments worldwide. The UN is a monumental beast with tentacles everywhere. Its only goal is centralized control.

Julian Huxley
Julian Sorell Huxley (1887-1975), one of the outstanding biologists of the 20th century, was a Life Fellow of the Eugenics Society from 1925, its President 1959-62, and is the only person ever to have given two Galton Lectures, in 1936 and 1962. He was also, at various times, Professor of Zoology at King’s College, London, Secretary of the Zoological Society of London, and the first Director-General of UNESCO. Huxley also founded the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Brock Chisholm


Eugenics is obsessed with the body (biological reductionism, materialism). It has two aspects:- a reproductive aspect (heredity, genetics) and a behavioral/environmental aspect (diet, exercise). Eugenics is antismoking and anti-alcohol. These are viewed as racial/body poisons. Ideas such as mind, soul, spirit, God, freedom, do not figure in the eugenics framework.

The public seems to be familiar with the reproductive (and reproductive sterilization) aspect of eugenics, but not the behavioral/environmental aspect. A greater understanding has been made even more difficult due to crypto-eugenics. Post-WWII, the eugenicists stopped using the “E”[eugenics] word given its horrific connotations from the Nazi experience. Eugenicists (and antismokers) rarely, if ever, acknowledge any wrongdoing. It’s part of the mental derangement. Eugenicists believed that the problem with Nazism was that Hitler went too far, rather than any fundamental problem with the eugenics framework. The intent was to proceed with eugenics in crypto-terms. With “heredity trees” shown-up as flawed, these were replaced by genetics/genetic engineering. Given that this pursuit was still in its infancy, the eugenics emphasis shifted to the behavioral/environmental branch of eugenics. But, again, it did not go by the name of “eugenics”. Post-WWII, it has gone by a variety of names, e.g., healthism, radical behaviorism, humanism, population control, environmentalism.

The overriding theme is that health is an entirely biological phenomenon: Only the physical state matters. Individuals are duty-bound to the State to be [physically] “healthy” in the national interest. This was an important aspect of Nazi eugenics. It is critical to note that eugenics is socialist and fascistic in ideo-political terms. The State is not a servant of the people, but the people are servants/slaves of the State.

Antismoking cannot be viewed in isolation. In this case, it is an over-arching eugenics framework that “legitimizes” antismoking. Smoking/smokers are considered as a “burden” to the State, an activity that must be eradicated. Rather than undergoing reproductive sterilization, through “denormalization”, smokers undergo social sterilization. The eugenics goal is to R-rate smoking, relegating the “vile, anti-social act” to the private domain where it cannot “corrupt” the “pure ones” and particularly the minors (i.e., The Children).

Medical practitioners are trained in the medical model (biological reductionism). Public Health courses are dominated by biological reductionism. Also taught is that these reductionists should be agents for change, i.e., social engineering. This is clearly a eugenics framework. Yet most within the Public Health infrastructure - "Health Professionals" - would not see themselves as eugenicists. Unfortunately, this is part of the great fraud. Those with this reductionist/social-engineering mindset dominate government health bureaucracies and Public Health generally the world over. These are not overly bright people; they are trained in a dangerously superficial framework and recognize no problem. It is this global eugenics infrastructure that is already well entrenched that poses one of the great dangers of the time. Troubling is that most – even in academia and the media – do not recognize, are blind to, the eugenics language/conduct.

Let as many know as possible that the cultic obsession with the body, with physical fitness, with antismoking, at the expense of all else, and where these are ideals that should be met by all IS EUGENICS. It is a destructive mentality. It is extraordinary that it is one-time relatively-free societies (e.g., the English-speaking west) that are leading the eugenics deterioration: It should be disturbing how one-time relatively-free societies are being transformed – through stealth – into socialist States.


Eugenics is obsessed with the body (biological reductionism, materialism). It has two aspects:- a reproductive aspect (heredity, genetics) and a behavioral/environmental aspect (diet, exercise). Eugenics is antismoking and anti-alcohol. These are viewed as racial/body poisons. Ideas such as mind, soul, spirit, God, freedom, do not figure in the eugenics framework.

In this respect, eugenic thinking is (or purports to be) 'modern scientific' thinking. It's closely tied to Darwinism and 'the survival of the fittest'. And to neo-Darwinism of the Richard Dawkins variety.

But, somehow or other, despite all its 'scientific' claims, it always strikes me as pseudoscientific - perhaps mostly because, despite its supposed reductionism and materialism, there's no physics in it.

Idle Theory, by contrast, rests upon a simple physical model of life, which is arguably even more reductionist and materialist than any eugenic notion of life. But Idle Theory, at the same time, has a very clear idea of freedom, and perhaps also also one of God (in the abstract sense of deus otiosus). Which is perhaps a bit paradoxical.

I've been wondering today whether the only way to kill off reductionist eugenic thinking is with an even more reductionist idea. An idea so reductionist as to incorporate everything excluded by most reductionism.

Physics is highly reductionist. But rather than diminishing the world, the reductionism of physics opens up entire new possibilities, entire new worlds (e.g. space travel). It restricts understanding in order to expand understanding. What might be termed 'vulgar' reductionism simply restricts understanding, and only serves to diminish the world and everything in it.


The Kessler-Koop Kommissiion

In 1997, then President Clinton assembled an Advisory Committee on The Tobacco Epidemic, headed by then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and then FDA head David Kessler, and peopled by every anti-smoking nut those two could dredge up.

I subtitled their subsequent report "The Final Solution to the Smoker Problem." It included recommendations for national indoor and outdoor smoking bans, bans in private homes with children and such chilling ideas as mandatory anti-tobacco "education"-- not only in schools and hospitals but in homes ("All aspects of society need reeducation") and fostered "research into subliminal messages in early childhood" and the establishment of "in patient nicotine dependence centers." Further, "political surveillance at all levels of government to expose tobacco campaign contributions, tobacco lobbying, and ethically compromised legislators."

That, just for openers.

Full report at:

Though not (yet) having gone as far as this report recommended, nevertheless, with or without ratifying the Treaty, the US has generally followed the WHO's WTF recommendations.

from Ashtrayhead:-

'Tobacco is a plant, not a disease.'

Nailed it!!

Sad to say, though Switzerland is not a signatory, the government is acting like it is. We have a smoking ban here in Vaud canton.

There is no total smoking ban in canton Zurich and smokers are provided for. Sort of. In the airport one can easily find a ?hermetically sealed GLASS CAGE furnished with plastic seats and tables - which some of the staff enter wearing a surgical mask.
The anti-smoker scaremongering propaganda has it's effect on the gullible.

"Antismoking cannot be viewed in isolation. In this case, it is an over-arching eugenics framework that “legitimizes” antismoking. Smoking/smokers are considered as a “burden” to the State, an activity that must be eradicated. Rather than undergoing reproductive sterilization, through “denormalization”, smokers undergo social sterilization. The eugenics goal is to R-rate smoking, relegating the “vile, anti-social act” to the private domain where it cannot “corrupt” the “pure ones” and particularly the minors (i.e., The Children)."

I would have liked to provide several links with respect to the origin of this 'de-normalisation campaign' which I came across when looking for more detailed information on encountering rabid anti-smokers. The texts are no longer to be found. Curious.

Thanks for this Frank, I hadn't realised the reach of FCTC was quite so sweeping!

Thanks should go to Rose rather than me.



That will be the same WHO which banned the use of DDT as an insecticide in Africa condeming 100,000's to an agonising death from Malaria then.

I can't help wondering if at least some MPs don't yet know about all this.

Otherwise Mr Nuttall wouldn't have presented his Early Day Motion

David Nuttall MP calls for end to pub smoking ban

"Landlords should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking in their pubs, a Greater Manchester MP has said.

David Nuttall, the new Conservative MP for Bury North, wants to overturn the smoking ban by introducing a Commons Early Day Motion next week."

Mr Nuttall said the legislation was partly responsible for the closure of dozens of pubs in his constituency.

"It's not just smokers, everybody loses out," he said.

Mr Nuttall's bill would exempt pubs and social clubs from the ban, allowing landlords and licensees to have dedicated smoking lounges for drinkers complete with smoke filters."

I heard a rumour that the Labour Whips were out, hardly surprising under the circumstances.
Perhaps someone should inform Mr Nuttall why.



"The WHO European Partnership Project on Tobacco Dependence is being set up with the objective of reducing tobacco related death and disease among smokers. The Partnership Project, which is open to both private, non-commercial and public sector partners, will support implementation of the key strategic goals of the World Health Organization's Tobacco Free Initiative.

The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence, to support a common goal that will have a significant impact on public health. The Project provides a model which can provide a basis for future partnerships with the private sector in other important health areas."

A Framework Convention on Alcohol Control - 2007

"For alcohol-control measures to be taken more seriously by governments, an international treaty modelled on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is needed. One of WHO's greatest achievements, the FCTC aims to counter the increase in tobacco consumption by making it a legal requirement for countries to introduce certain tobacco-control strategies."

"From its initial inception, the FCTC took 10 years to become a reality. The road to an FCAC is likely to be similarly long. Next year's World Health Assembly provides a crucial opportunity for WHO and member states to make those first steps towards a global treaty to reduce alcohol-related harm."

APHA Approves Framework Convention on Alcohol Control

WHO considers global war on alcohol abuse - 2008

"BILLIONS of people the world over drink alcohol to overcome shyness and animate their social lives - as people have done for millennia.
For most drinkers, alcohol is associated above all with relaxation and conviviality, and people forget about its darker side.

Yet doctors, governments and healthcare agencies are becoming so concerned about the effects of alcohol abuse that in January the executive board of the World Health Organization agreed a plan to develop a global strategy to combat the damage alcohol can do.

The harm drinkers are doing to themselves, such as liver and brain damage, is only part of the problem. The plan has been given extra momentum by a growing recognition of the number of people who, while not themselves drunk, suffer as a result of the reckless or aggressive behaviour of those who are."

"We recognise that there is an urgent need to take action to reduce alcohol-related harm and redress the excessively pro-alcohol social norms in the UK."

International cooperation on alcohol control

The UK Governments should:
• lobby for, and support the WHO in developing and implementing a legally binding international treaty on alcohol control in the form of a Framework Convention on Alcohol Control."

Time to start laying down a cellar.


I did wonder why Anti tobacco kept mixing up the hospitality industry with the tobacco companies.

"Big tobacco knew it couldn't counter the ban arguments itself - so it financed others to do its dirty work instead.

Researchers writing in the June 2002 issue of the medical journal Tobacco Control reveal tobacco manufacturers gave donations to hospitality groups - which the tobacco industry describes as "our greatest potential ally" - as part of an "aggressive and effective worldwide campaign to recruit hospitality associations" in the USA and Europe.

Tobacco industry targets including groups dedicated to lobbying the European Commission.

The 2002 Tobacco Control paper concludes: "Through the myth of lost profits, the tobacco industry has fooled the hospitality industry into embracing expensive ventilation equipment, while in reality 100 per cent smoke-free laws have been shown to have no effect on business revenues, or even to improve them."

The bans they describe are not bans at all, they are non-smoking areas, so naturally , there is no loss of business.

Perhaps someone should tell the publicans not to bother bashing their heads against the Government's brick wall any more.


How many tanks does the WHO have? Don't be defeatist. The Dutch will be smoking in pubs for the forseeable future. I agree with the Spanish blogger.

What I mean is, the usual avenues of discussion with government is closed to us,so the normal route of petitions and letters to MPs is a complete waste of time and a source of false hope.

The government should have at least had the decency to say so, but they probably were too embarassed to come clean.

It also explains the silence of the formerly crusading papers and the BBC.

Subject to official denial,at least now we know where we are.


What it means is that the UN charter must be disolved in order to regain the worlds freedom from such dictatorial control!

what to do about it?

Then what do you suggest we do about it Rose??


Frankly Charles, I have no idea.

I'm still reeling at the thought that any British government could do this.

Though the last 13 years should have given me a clue.


In America that means the treaty OUTLAWED THE 1ST AMENDMENT,meaning the senate can never affirm the treaty as the treaty is unconstitutional in itself and stops america from
even considering it until those unconstitutional parts are removed.

But on another note,The WHO treaty also blackmailed signitory countries to sign on or lose world bank loans etc.....

I will have to dig that up,but its what they did!

Trying to find which weasel signed the thing for Britain and failing miserably -

It appears that George Bush signed the treaty in 2004 but didn't send it to the Senate.

"The United States is a conspicuous absentee from the WHO’s war against smoking. The tobacco treaty is one of many instruments of international law that America helped to design, only to hold off from ratifying it because of stiff opposition on Capitol Hill.

For example, Richard Burr, a senator from North Carolina, calls the treaty a surrender of sovereignty which would punish the United States by forcing it to fund the lion’s share of a global anti-tobacco drive with no corresponding rise in influence.

Moreover, he says, the drafters of the treaty refused to listen to the “producers of tobacco”—a sure sign that their purpose was not “to bring a safer product to market” but to eliminate the production of tobacco altogether.

On the last point, at least, tobacco’s sternest foes might concur with the senator. However, some American legislators have taken a different view.
In 2005 a group of 11 senators wrote to George Bush urging him to send over the tobacco treaty for consideration; they noted that tobacco claims more than 400,000 American lives a year.

One of the signatories was a senator whose appealingly husky voice may owe something to his own weakness for the weed—Barack Obama."

In a last minute turnabout, the United States and Germany both said they would back a global anti-tobacco treaty—thus leaving no obstacle to its final adoption on 21 May at the World Health Organization's assembly."

"Germany said its constitution prevented it from introducing the comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship foreseen in the treaty.

But on Monday a German official in Geneva said that Berlin had decided not to challenge the agreement.

“We've agreed to support the treaty,” said the official, who asked not to be identified.

The European Union acts in unison, and the rest of the union had supported the treaty, but a challenge from just one country would have been enough to force the rest to oppose it, which in effect would have undermined the whole treaty."


"Germany said its constitution prevented it from introducing the comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship foreseen in the treaty.

But on Monday a German official in Geneva said that Berlin had decided not to challenge the agreement.

“We've agreed to support the treaty,” said the official, who asked not to be identified.
but a challenge from just one country would have been enough to force the rest to oppose it, which in effect would have undermined the whole treaty.""

By the looks of it Germany will not be the country challenging the agreement.....

I am utterly, utterly disappointed!!!!!!


Don't forget that the companies in partnership with the WHO are now so deep into our various country's health services, really they could ask for anything they wanted.
Without their cooperation those services would collapse.

They've already got herbal medicines banned.

It's just a question of how the governments involved present it to the public.

No government wants to look powerless to protect peoples freedom, no matter how much their arm may be being quietly twisted.

Which probably explains all those bizarre and ludicrous studies we are being subjected to, and the series of Heart Miracle press releases, which fall apart when the real data is examined.

To make it look like all the damage was worth it.


Tobacco is a plant, not a disease

And while all this was going on in support of the Pharmaceutical partnership with the WHO, no one seems to have had any problems with the other would be tobacco companies -

How a tobacco farm in Kent could provide a life-saving drug for millions
"There is nothing unusual about the plants' appearance, but they are nonetheless extraordinary. A genetic tweak ensures that every cell of every plant churns out tiny quantities of an experimental drug. When harvested, they could bring cheap medicine to millions"

Tobacco-derived drug prevents cavities
"The cultivation of these plants for eventual use in the pharmaceutical industry is set to become a subject of much focus, as attention is not concentrated on the risks of green biotechnology, but rather on its medicinal possibilities"

Tobacco research could yield medical bonanza
"Research is showing that the tobacco plant may yet provide a bonanza for the medical world and bring a brighter future for small tobacco farmers thinking of calling it quits."

Tobacco Promising Factory For Biopharmaceuticals

Health-bringing tobacco

Harvesting "green" pharmaceuticals
"Blood substitutes and antibodies to combat caries, harvested from plants - molecular farming provides a solution. Fraunhofer researchers are producing a number of valuable substances from tobacco. They were awarded Joseph-von-Fraunhofer special-merit prize."

A St. Louis firm — Chlorogen Inc. — is developing ways to make tobacco leaves produce proteins for medical research and treatments. The technology alters the chloroplast DNA in the plant cells."

Molecular farming - Tobacco's future?
"The tobacco plant is most suited to large-scale production of active agents," says Dr. Stefan Schillberg of the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biotechnology and Applied Ecology in Germany.

"It can easily be genetically modified and cultivated at low cost. Tobacco generates a great volume of biomass per hectare per year, and thus produces a very high yield of the final product."

Blair - 2007
"To allow the biotech industry to get some strength in research out of the NHS is something we need to look at in this country,"

I wonder what he meant by that.


There are a few interesting things coming to light here (how come we are only finding these things out now?).

I would never have thought that the UK Government would ever have agreed to any form of WHO control over taxation in the UK - not in any form at all, even if only indirect. But I also read somewhere that the Treaty was agreed by the Health Dept. I wonder if others in the cabinet at the time knew what had been signed away?

As regards HD's comment about 'world bank loans' etc, that would certainly explain the indecent haste of countries to implement Tobacco Control.

If only it were possible to find out more about this blackmail and threats!

I tried posting on this when I first read the link to your story on F2C Scotland, but their website wasn't working for some reason. If it eventually shows up there, probably won't, then I apologize for the repeat comment, but this is what it brought to mind, based on what their article said about the same matter:

"It still astonishes me that the first multilateral treaty created by the World Health Organisation is about smoking, rather than communicable diseases suffered by the poorest in global society."

It reminds me of three "public service" (paid by the taxpayer by way of quango/fake-charity) posters hanging side by side, all three, in the San Francisco Muni subway main downtown stations last summer.

Poster #1 was all red and orange graphics, done up in the style of a Soviet propaganda drawing, showing "comrades" waving flags and simply stating "Fighting AIDS is Like Fighting Racism". (The poster didn't indicate to abstain from unsafe sex or using condoms, just that it was an extension of the left political thrust to give a skance bare look to the cause of a true health problem and downplay it more as a "political" problem.)

Poster #2, to the immediate right, showed close-ups of some medical things in all blue and white fluffy cloudy mist and had the message, "It's What You Don't Know About Stem Cell Research That Can Hurt You", also quango-produced and going on to extoll the virtues of what is being done with the left-over by-products of all those millions of abortions performed yearly, mainly among the lower classes - and of course making no mention and leaving "Not Known" that the abortion industry is of course required, to obtain those precious stem-cells.

Poster #3, to the right of that, was from an anti-smoking quango, not that SF doesn't have it's full share of them - and it showed someone sitting outside a cafe in an outdoor seating area with No-Smoking signs and of course everything picture-perfect, with the message, "Smoke-Free San Francisco" - to impart the message that THIS, THIS SMOKE-"FREE" is the REAL "health danger".

So there you have it.

"Fighting" AIDS (but not really doing anything to stop it) and aborting babies (primarily among the poor) are all "good" things, to be applauded - nothing to do with health, though it obviously IS, but the distraction is made clear.

Then, next to it, the REAL message they wish to get across, distract everyone from the OBVIOUS, by instead, demeaning "smokers" as the "real threat" to "health" in this city.

That is how the UN anti-tobacco treaty is set up to operate - to enforce total intolerance toward "smokers" and "tobacco" - and using that as a subliminal message to distract everyone away from the REAL health issues - like malaria in Africa, AIDS worldwide, promotion of abortions and soon euthansia - to make everyone think that malria, AIDS, abortion and euthansia don't really kill anyone, only smoking does.

And it's working. People, for the most part, hear the propaganda, which the campaigns are intertwined and being coordinated high up - and they fall for the bait, hook, line and sinker.

It's going to be a miserable, horrible, corrupted world once they manage to get their way about it and tobacco is made illegal.

Mark my words, that is the direction they are moving in - and anti-smoking is a prime propaganda force behind this drive toward the one-world and undemocratic, unelected world dictatorship, just around the corner.

That little puff of smoke people once saw in their pubs and cafes, that little puff was their INSURANCE - that their liberties would not be destroyed. Now, with that gone, their liberties WILL be destroyed. People have allowed and invited this evil into the world of their own accord - and there will be hell to pay for it, in the end.

Their children and grand-children, at some point, will grow up to hate the anti-smokers of this day and age for the wrath they have brought upon the generations yet to come.

"give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power – and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health."

"The IAEA has vetoed conferences planned by WHO on radioactivity and health "

and don't forget the WHO will not employ any smokers.

"10. How will WHO determine whether a person who applies to work for WHO
is a smoker or tobacco user?
The following questions will be included in the online application form:
• "Do you smoke or use tobacco products?"
• "If you currently smoke or use tobacco products, would you continue to do so if
employed by WHO?"
If the answer to both questions is "yes", the applicant will not be considered for selection."


"No safe threshold levels have been established. This means that substances in tobacco and tobacco smoke may cause harm even at low levels of exposure.
WHO is at the forefront of the global campaign to curb the tobacco epidemic."

Presumably no such problem for transuranics which we assume to have a safe threshold. It's good to know that the WHO vetos smokers and that the IAEA has a veto on the WHO.
All very healthy.

Perhaps this is of interest:

Hier a rather quick translation:

5. Januar 2011 (0)
Medienmitteilung 09
Smoking allowed
Show- and Party hall4 will be smoking area

Some will be happy, others not. That's life. In this case the first are the smokers, the others are the non-smokers. In any case it is official: in the show- and party hall 4 will be smoker friendly throughout the Bremen 6-Tage-Rennens (bicycle race event over a period of 6 days). There were numerous discussions and considerations prior to this decision.

"There were some other suggestions and solutions to the subject of smoking but they were not really feasible",declared the-6-day-event-chief Frank Minder and continued further: "I am happy with this, this way there have not to be 'migration' to other rooms." The highlights of the sports event in the Bremen Arena remain smoke free.

Every now and then one comes across event managers with common sense.


Your comment is very apt.

In the first place, there simply must be a 'safe threshold'. The evidence that there is a 'safe threshold' is the clear and obvious fact that not everyone who smokes dies because they smoke. Of course, ASH etc would say that no matter how long you live, you could always have lived longer had you not smoked - and that is their ultimate argument. But there is no way to substantiate it.

Secondly, the phrase 'substances in tobacco MAY cause harm.....' is no different from saying that 'drinking water from the tap MAY cause harm...'. That is, the statement has no merit.

It really is odd that our politicians cannot see pure propaganda when they see it. Even if smoking is a bad thing, propaganda is no basis on which to make good law.

"No safe threshold levels have been established.

This means that substances in tobacco and tobacco smoke may cause harm even at low levels of exposure."

No it doesn't, it means that no one has ever bothered to find a safe level.

They haven't bothered to find a safe level in potatoes either.

In older literature (before 1954) these have been referred to only as 'solanine' or as total glycoalkaloids (TGA).

The potato glycoalkaloids have not been evaluated previously by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee.

"The Committee considered that, despite the long history of human consumption of plants containing glycoalkaloids, the available epidemiological and experimental data from human and laboratory animal studies did not permit the determination of a safe level of intake.

The Committee recognized that the development of empirical data to support such a level would require considerable effort."

"Many plants of the Solanaceae family, which includes the genus Nicotiana, of which the tobacco
plant is a member, contain solanesol; particularly those that contain trace amounts of nicotine.
These include the tomato, eggplant, potato, and pepper.

The potential interference due to these sources is negligible, cooking being the only likely potential source of interference. An interference of this type would bias results high, overestimating the contribution of ETS to RSP.


I think we can safely assume that no one has bothered to calculate the safe level of smoke of a grilled tomato or a blistered red pepper either.



There are no safe levels of potatoes?


But there is a LD50 for the solanine in potatoes, its in the link.

"the lethal dose (LD50) for tomatine is said to be 0.5 grams per kg of body weight."

Now you can say quite truthfully,that tomatoes can kill you and that there is no safe level.

( Because it has never been calculated )


I've been wondering today whether the only way to kill off reductionist eugenic thinking is with an even more reductionist idea. An idea so reductionist as to incorporate everything excluded by most reductionism.

I don’t think that will help. There may be variants of reductionism, but they are still in denial of critical dimensions of the human experience. Human experience does not lend itself well to scientific enquiry. This is not a problem with human experience. It is a problem with scientific enquiry which actually has a very limited scope of application. You can open up new physical worlds with physics but they are still interpreted as only physical. What about psychology? What about the psycho-social - relationship? What about morality? Physics cannot address these. Nor should it be expected to.

This has been argued/understood for millennia. Other approaches to human experience have been explored, e.g., introspection, hermeneutics, philosophy and other metaphysics. But these do not sit well with shallow thinkers. They need to objectively observe (a tenet of scientific enquiry) their subject matter. And, so, “mind” is dispensed with and replaced with overt, observable behavior, i.e., behaviorism. In fact, reductionism is all behaviorism, from the behavior of [physical] micro levels to a gross, overall level. We can certainly accept that science has limited application. The problem with materialism is that it goes one step further. It argues that only what can be scientifically investigated exists or is important. This is not a scientific proposition but a philosophical one, and a very questionable one at that.

And the eugenicists install themselves in this dangerously shallow framework as overseers of all “behavior”. Eugenicists believe that evolution is too slow and can “get things wrong”. They will, therefore, speed up the process through their “engineering”. So, we have a socialist/fascistic framework where a self-installed elite are the “herders”. It should be obvious from your experience of antismoking that honesty and integrity do not figure at all in a reductionist framework. There is no absolute morality. It is based on moral relativism or situational ethics. You do what is required to effect the desired outcome, i.e., the end justifies the means. Propaganda (lying) is perfectly acceptable in attempting to produce a herd-level change. Producing discord, bigotry, racism to effect desired physical/behavioral outcomes is all fine. The physicalist will attempt to “protect” the physical – usually irrationally – while producing carnage at other levels.

So, critical dimensions of the human potential are ignored. These dimensions don’t just go away. It is the worse along these dimensions that will be enabled by shallow reductionist thinkers. Hopefully you can see that reductionists have little or no psychological insight. They are utterly dominated by “observables”, externalities. They have spent little or no time on internal examination. They have no sense of their own mind, its motivation, and its foibles. This is why they can so easily embark on destructive crusades to “fix up the world”. Only shallow, immature minds would not recognize their own destructive potential. They do not recognize arrogance, haughtiness, pomposity, bigotry, racism, tyranny. A reductionist framework provides the opportunity to enact this destructiveness, essentially removing (at least temporarily) the opportunities for coherent learning.

(to be cont’d)


I would just like to make mention of a most insightful comment by a poster a few threads ago. It concerned psychological projection. For example, the hyper-sensitivity/reactivity of antismokers to smoke is so inordinate, so disproportionate, that it should be obvious that it is not smoking that is really bothering them. These are troubled minds, harboring severe fear and hostility; fear and hostility go hand-in-hand, two sides of the one coin. For immature thinkers, addressing this conflicted state on their own is all too much. The mind protects itself from direct awareness of the conflicted state by projecting it outwards: It is a self-protective illusion produced by mind. Unfortunately, projection does not solve the problem. It reinforces it. Smoke seems to lend itself beautifully to projection. Smoke is made to appear as the source of what is actually feared within. It can be “imbued” with all sorts of “dangerous” propensities. The more the projection is reinforced, the more “dangerous” the smoke will appear to be. And it allows others (smokers) to be blamed for the inner discomfort of the antismoker. Now we are at the stage where a significant subgroup of nonsmokers hyper-react to even a whiff of smoke, perceived as bio-weapon-like. This has all been “accomplished” psychologically in the destructive sense.

Not too long ago there would have been many, even lay folk, that would have picked-up that the ranting and raving of a rabid antismoker reflects a troubled mind. As a collective, we had more psychological insight. This has all changed. The domination of materialism and the normalizing of antismoking means that, collectively, we have lost psychological insight, which, in turn, has social, moral, ideo-political, physical, and metaphysical ramifications.

Put another way, the worldly system is in big trouble. Allowing materialism to dominate means that we are not attending to the inner state. And materialism will further reinforce the idea that there is no inner state or that, if there is, it’s not important. We are not addressing and clearing destructive propensities and, therefore, unfamiliar with the resultant insight into the profoundly grand propensities of mind. By not addressing this inner state, we are becoming more impatient, more intolerant, easily manipulated into bigotry, are only capable of poor, shallow relationships, etc., etc. We are oh so fearful and demand appeasement of fear. Fear begets fear, and more fear. Genuine love, it seems, has been [illusorily] vanquished. We have a serious metaphysical problem. At some point, all of this unresolved “inner junk” amongst the global masses will come to a catastrophic head. These unattended destructive tendencies can only be swept under the “mental carpet” so long before they come very much to the fore. This is the exorbitant cost of superficiality.

So, to address your proposition (having digressed), further reductionism will not address the dangers of reductionism. We are in desperate need of profound [multi-dimensional] insight – call it even spiritual insight - that goes far beyond scientific enquiry. Yet we are actively making it as unwelcome as possible.


Well, there's an awful lot in what you've just written. And I'm not inclined to disagree with any of it. But it's 4 o'clock in the morning, and a bit past my bedtime.

But what I would like to say is that the rise of physics over the past few centuries was in part a consequence of the re-affirmation of the 'gross, worldly, carnal' world in the face of a theology (probably not the right word) which was trying to bury it, and make us wholly spiritual beings.

In the grand scheme of things, the physical and the spiritual must be equally important. In past centuries the spiritual lorded it over the physical or material. Now the physical and material lord it over the spiritual. Neither represents a balanced perspective.

Perhaps this can be continued another time...


this is old but it is the established threshold for shs/ets by osha standards.......Im sure everyone has seen it and read it before but needs to be reposted. These are acute levels at which you might see problems for the individual chemical. As far as chronic exposure goes its not even in consideration for a harm level as we have seen in the epidemiological studies over 40 years with no harm seen and the small numbers where they got something,this latest story and finding should put it all to rest:

Lung cancer in smokers may be different from lung cancer in nonsmokers: Vancouver study

Lung cancer in smokers has different genetic mutations and looks like a different disease than lung cancer in non-smokers, a team of B.C. Cancer Agency scientists has discovered.

Although doctors and scientists have suspected for some time that there were different biological mechanisms underlying lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers, the B.C. study is said to be the first to find whole regions of mutations.

Never-smokers account for up to 15 per cent of lung cancer cases and the research shows that while there were DNA mutations in both never-smokers and smokers, the never smoker tumours had far more alterations. For some unknown reason, never smokers who get lung cancer are more likely to be female.

Read more:

From dave athertons story comments today
The problem with the SHS is that lung cancer in smokers and non smokers is medically and scientifically entirely different. I.e the causation is different.
In smokers it is a specific genetic mutation of the p53 gene called a guanine to thymine transversion. In non smokers it is mutation of either the EGFR, GCP5 or FGFR genes. It would not be caused by breathing in other people's tobacco smoke.
Alas like many things urban myths to downright misleading plagues the anti smoking movement.

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Osha has whats called PEL'S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments...[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare.

The actual standard to use is OSHA'S

The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.

The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

How interesting that the US hasn’t yet ratified the treaty, being as it probably originated from their shores, as that’s where the WHO operates, and is largely controlled, from. Might that be all those pesky Southern States who have been dragging their heels in embracing the whole "smoke-free world" concept, the naughty boys?

It certainly explains much as to why smokers’ (and, these days, many non-smokers’) increasingly vociferous protests about the ban have been so roundly and totally ignored, to the point where, even if they won’t admit it publicly, it must surely now be becoming a bit of an embarrassment to the Government. One almost wonders whether, privately, they are regretting going so over the top on our ban in the first place and wishing perhaps that they’d been just a little less heavy-handed so that they wouldn’t now have to keep sweeping all that evidence of the ban’s obvious unpopularity under the carpet.

It’s surprising, too, that any allowance at all is made for withdrawal from the Treaty – most of these international “agreements” make darned sure that once you’re in, you’re in for good. A quick look at any of the EU Treaties and agreements illustrate perfectly clearly how, even if they don’t forbid withdrawal, they certainly write in clauses to make it bloody difficult to escape! Curious.

But maybe that’s a tack which those of us who despise this ban so much should approach the matter from. After all, if the main thing that’s stopping them from repealing, or at least relaxing, our ban is the fact that they’re signed up to this thing, then maybe pressure to withdraw from it would force their hand, if the protests were loud and angry enough. Perhaps with the tide (slowly) turning in the MSM, now might be a good time for any journalists reading this blog to do a little article about the whole thing ........

It’s surprising, too, that any allowance at all is made for withdrawal from the Treaty – most of these international “agreements” make darned sure that once you’re in, you’re in for good. A quick look at any of the EU Treaties and agreements illustrate perfectly clearly how, even if they don’t forbid withdrawal, they certainly write in clauses to make it bloody difficult to escape! Curious.

Well, if you look at Article 31, which permits withdrawal, the last line of it says that if you withdraw from the Convention, you also withdraw from all associated protocols.

That's probably the sting in the tail. And what it probably means is that, if you withdraw from the Convention, you withdraw from about 100 other treaties, some of which may be extremely valuable to you. Like, maybe, the provision of important medicines, valuable epidemic warnings, information on new treatments. And you really wouldn't want to lose them.

I'm just guessing, though.


Frank,by the time this WHO bullshit is done worldwide,I think it will be to everyones advantage to withdraw regardless.I further believe it will be all these protocal actions being implemented by the WHO that will lead to its own destruction.

The EU will not stand,its bankrupt and already Im seeing the financial times reporting runs on irish banks and then onto spanish,greek,portugese holdings.The world bank is making bond and exchanges in the chinese yuan now hoping to defer a total collapse.Obama has offered up 4 trillion to the EU,IMF and world bank to shore up failings and losses as they mount......

The last world depression aided in destroying prohibition,I assume it will do the same yet again!

Dr Kamal Chaouachi's wise advice on how to repeal prohibition

Excerpt from a speech Dr. Kamal Chaouachi delivered at the TICAP 2nd International Conference against prohibition.

From ''efforts
for the abolition of Prohibition should be geared to the other opposite direction; by urging
States to withdraw from the FCTC. The so called
Rogue States, who know what big
scares and scams are (Venezuela, Cuba, and others), will be more receptive to this issue.
Remember Hugo Chavez’ speech at the last Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen.
If he were informed of all the frauds, commercial imperialist interests at stake behind the
tobacco global prohibition project, we can expect that he could do the same and drag
many States to collectively withdraw from the FCTC. ''

I totally agreed with Dr. Chaouachi and made it a point to give my support for such a motion during the question and comment period. Unfortunately none of our groups or individual activists pursued and by reading your comments I now realize why. Many were not even aware of the binding principle of the FCTC!

Our governments have sold us to the WHO and not that they can't necessarily get out of it, but as someone has said here, it will be very difficult. You can imagine how a gov't that pulls out of this convention will be driven to its knees if it even dared to so much as hint that it no longer wants to abide to all of the FCTC clauses! I can only imagine the type of pressure that was exerted on Greece and Spain to implement FCTC type of smoking bans at a time when they were mostly hurting economically.

Our only weapon for the time being is attempting to change public opinion by exposing the corruption. When public opinion will begin to acknowledge the shenanigans and corruption, then our elected officials might grow the cojones to gradually but surely tell the WHO and the tobacco control/pharma cabal where to go! It doesn't hurt however to keep holding our governments accountable for the mess they have created and pressure them through the voices of our MP's to withdraw from the FCTC.


Re: Dr Kamal Chaouachi's wise advice on how to repeal prohibition

Another thing worth exploring might be to see whether the UN is operating in the same way in other areas. e.g. global warming.

I'm sure there will be similar sorts of treaties and conventions elsewhere.

On the other hand, it may be that the Copenhagen climate talks in December 2009 'failed' precisely because such a treaty was not agreed.


Re: Dr Kamal Chaouachi's wise advice on how to repeal prohibition

I dropped in a comment on Bishop Hill. Maybe somebody will respond:

O.T. I've been a bit puzzled in recent years why many governments seem to refuse to contemplate any criticism of Tobacco Control policies and Climate Change policies. In respect of Tobacco Control, it would appear that this is because they are bound by Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to "protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry". WHO guidelines on Article 5.3 further state that

The measures recommended in these guidelines aim at protecting against interference not only by the tobacco industry but also, as appropriate, by organizations and individuals that work to further the interests of the tobacco industry.

That is to say that governments that have signed and ratified the Convention are bound by the terms of the treaty to ignore any representations by organizations or (equally importantly) individuals who oppose its provisions (and who may therefore be deemed to be furthering the interests of the tobacco industry).

My question is: is there a similar UN treaty in respect of Climate Change, which binds governments to ignore any representations from, say, oil companies or their proxies seeking to "interfere with" any climate change legislation set out in the treaty? Or is it that the failed Copenhagen talks of 2009 marked the point where governments refused to sign such a binding and muzzling treaty?

Regardless of the answers to the above questions, to what extent have governments around the world already been compromised by entering into similar treaty agreements with the UN in areas quite separate from Tobacco Control or Climate Change?


It’s like the Hotel California……. You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave.



FCTC and Orwell and Obama

Hear, hear Frank. I had a similar reaction of stupefaction and gut-sizzling anger when I came upon the actual wording to this atrocious document.

I came upon it by way of researching just who the hell this Heather Wipfli person is, with an idea of writing up a piece on her. In all actuality, I'd mentioned the FCTC two years ago on my site in an article detailing what I'd missed in what made Obama tick. I noted that he joined some other Senators in urging Bush Jr. to sign this abomination, but never looked into the dotted i's and crossed t's.

Here's what I said regarding Obama and FCTC: "This is bad, really bad. There are sovereignty issues involved here that he comes down on the wrong side of. This is just what we need, Worldwide Nicotine Nazi forces. The UN is ineffective in quelling warfare between nations, possibly because they're sidetracked by making sure no one anywhere on earth has to experience a wayward whiff of tobacco smoke."

I came across an article in which a Minister of Health in Mexico takes Wipfli and Glantz and the new Prince of Darkness Jonathan Samet to task, even accusing them of being imperialist, that centers around the FCTC. That's when I really started reading and absorbing what it really said.

My reaction was similar, so much so that I went off on a research tangent to recall what Orwell was saying in '1984'. He nailed it so right on the head, it is uncanny. C. Everett Koop, in the year 1984, almost even specifically April, 1984 like the novel, really started what is culminating in FCTC. Orwell was an amazing fellow.

Talk about the Inner Party ! It's all there in this document. I'm really beginning to despise Obama and his wife and Nancy-Ann DeParle et al more by the day. They say he's inexplicably lost 15 pounds recently and I'm hoping it's something really bad. The only problem is that Joseph Biden, the VP is even worse.

As I perused the FCTC and Article 5.3 in particular, with my blood starting to boil, I grabbed a piece of paper and a pen and wrote out DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER three times, lit up two cigarettes and I must say, felt a little relief.

  • 1

Log in