Monday, February 10, 2020


NO SMOKING

Ayn Rand > Quotes

Ayn Rand quotes 

― 
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

“I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression.”



ANTI-SMOKING PATERNALISM: A CANCER ON AMERICAN LIBERTY

by Don Watkins | March 06, 2010
Newport Beach is considering banning smoking in a variety of new places, potentially including parks and outdoor dining areas. This is just the latest step in a widespread war on smoking by federal, state, and local governments — a campaign that includes massive taxes on cigarettes, advertising bans, and endless lawsuits against tobacco companies. This war is infecting America with a political disease far worse than any health risk caused by smoking; it is destroying our freedom to make our own judgments and choices.
According to the anti-smoking movement, restricting people’s freedom to smoke is justified by the necessity of combating the “epidemic” of smoking-related disease and death. Cigarettes, we are told, kill hundreds of thousands each year, and expose countless millions to secondhand smoke. Smoking, the anti-smoking movement says, in effect, is a plague, whose ravages can only be combated through drastic government action.
But smoking is not some infectious disease that must be quarantined and destroyed by the government. It’s a voluntary activity that every individual is free to abstain from (including by avoiding restaurants and other private establishments that permit smoking). And, contrary to those who regard any smoking as irrational on its face, cigarettes are a potential value that each individual must assess for himself. Of course, smoking can be harmful — in certain quantities, over a certain period of time, it can be habit forming and lead to disease or death. But many understandably regard the risks as minimal if one smokes relatively infrequently, and they see smoking as offering definite value, such as physical pleasure.
Are they right? Can it be a value to smoke cigarettes — and if so, in what quantity? This is the sort of judgment that properly belongs to every individual, based on his assessment of the evidence concerning smoking’s benefits and risks, and taking into account his particular circumstances (age, family history, etc.). If others believe the smoker is making a mistake, they are free to try to persuade him of their viewpoint. But they should not be free to dictate his decision, any more than they should be able to dictate his decision on whether and to what extent to drink alcohol or play poker. The fact that some individuals will smoke themselves into an early grave is no more justification for banning smoking than that the existence of alcoholics is grounds for prohibiting you from enjoying a drink at dinner.
Implicit in the war on smoking, however, is the view that the government must dictate the individual’s decisions with regard to smoking, because he is incapable of making them rationally. To the extent the anti-smoking movement succeeds in wielding the power of government coercion to impose on Americans its blanket opposition to smoking, it is entrenching paternalism: the view that individuals are incompetent to run their own lives, and thus require a nanny-state to control every aspect of those lives.
This state is well on its way: from trans-fat bans to bicycle helmet laws to prohibitions on gambling, the government is increasingly abridging our freedom on the grounds that we are not competent to make rational decisions in these areas — just as it has long done by paternalistically dictating how we plan for retirement (Social Security) or what medicines we may take (the FDA).
Indeed, one of the main arguments used to bolster the anti-smoking agenda is the claim that smokers impose “social costs” on non-smokers, such as smoking-related medical expenses — an argument that perversely uses an injustice created by paternalism to support its expansion. The only reason non-smokers today are forced to foot the medical bills of smokers is that our government has virtually taken over the field of medicine, in order to relieve us inept Americans of the freedom to manage our own health care, and bear the costs of our own choices.
But contrary to paternalism, we are not congenitally irrational misfits. We are thinking beings for whom it is both possible and necessary to rationally judge which courses of action will serve our interests. The consequences of ignoring this fact range from denying us legitimate pleasures to literally killing us: from the healthy 26-year-old unable to enjoy a trans-fatty food to the 75-year-old man unable to take an unapproved, experimental drug without which he will certainly die.
By employing government coercion to deprive us of the freedom to judge for ourselves what we inhale or consume, the anti-smoking movement has become an enemy, not an ally, in the quest for health and happiness.




Ellsworth Toohey, the chief villain in The Fountainhead,  on the imperative of sacrificing one’s vales tor the “higher good.” The FountainheadAnti-Smoking Essay.docx (pp. 301-314, Toohey’s academic and journalism career. Chapter 9, Part 2)   throughout the novel Toohey is the articulate essence of a power-luster whose unchanging goal is to destroy the good for being the good.    
  “A man braver than his brothers insults them by implication. Let us aspire to no virtue which cannot be shared.”…”We are all brothers under the skin –and I, for one, would be willing to skin humanity to prove it.”….”Everything that proceeds from the ego is evil; everything that proceeds from love for others is good.”…”Service is the only badge of nobility.”
A great many philanthropic undertakings and radical publications, run by all sorts of people, had a single connecting link among them, one common denominator: the name of Ellsworth M. Toohey on their stationery. He was a sort of one-man holding company of altruism.…..
                     
                                                                    
(Toohey) in his university career, was considered outstanding as a vocational adviser.
Some of his advice. He seldom let a boy pursue the career he had chosen.
“No, I wouldn’t go in for law if I were you. You’re much too tense and passionate about It. A hysterical devotion to one’s career does not make for happiness or success…”  “No, I wouldn’t advise you to continue with your music. That’s just the trouble—that you love it…Yes, give it up, Yes, even if it hurts like hell.”…”The question of where you could be the most useful to your fellowmen comes first….And where opportunities for service are concerned, there’s no endeavor comparable to that of a surgeon. Think it over.”
Of all the many titles bestowed upon him, he preferred one: Ellsworth Toohey, the Humanitarian.
As he is portrayed in words and actions in the novel, Ellsworth Toohey is the brain brother and soul mate of most of the dictators in history. Many of these figures also professed to be humanitarians – champions of the Race, of the people, of any collective idea or movement “higher” than the individual, posing as vehicles of salvation. His purpose was to exact universal obedience, conformity in thought, and in thoughtless, knee-jerk agreement with the imperative of crushing the exceptional and  individual freedom and choice. Toohey sought to reduce the tall mountains of individualism to a monotonous, unending expanse of sand, undisturbed by the least wind of choice and independent thought.
The first prominent anti-smoker was English King James.

KING JAMES I, A COUNTERBLASTE TO TOBACCO, 1604

Context

This document is the first page of a treatise that was first issued by King James I (1566–1625) in 1604 and later received a new printing in 1674. He was the King of Great Britain from 1603 until his death in 1625. The first English ruler from the House of Stuart, he succeeded Queen Elizabeth I after her death, and was the first British monarch to rule both England and Scotland. In this treatise King James I gives various reasons for his strong dislike of tobacco, each of which is meant to counteract several then common reasons for tobacco usage.

Europeans had been exposed to tobacco as early as 1560 and used it primarily as medicine. In the following decades, tobacco use among Europeans increased, not only for medicinal use but also for recreation. For many rulers in Europe, including King James I, tobacco smoking represented a major social and health problem. English leaders did not make the sale and smoking of tobacco illegal, although many other European countries did. Instead, King James I
tried hard to reduce tobacco usage, even instituting a 4,000 percent tax hike on tobacco in 1604. The price increase, however, did little to reduce English demand for the “noxious weed.”
The attitude of the king and members of England's ruling classes changed when tobacco became a cash crop for its colonies. During the early years of English exploration and settlement of North America, only a small amount of tobacco was cultivated and exported. For that reason, in 1604, when King James issued this statement, the main suppliers of tobacco to the English were foreign shippers. Not until the 1620s did the English colonies of Virginia and Maryland began to grow and export large quantities. Accepting the inevitable King James decided the Crown might as well cash in on the popularity of tobacco and the state took control of the industry. Ironically, tobacco cultivation would lay the foundation for the success of England's American colonies.
Of course, we know that government anti-smoking powers have emulated King James and his elitist allies over the centuries by not only frowning on tobacco and smoking and discouraging them, but decided to impose taxes and controls on the “noxious” leaf and its use world over because it could not be stamped out, and collect revenue on its growing use and sale, as the U.S. government, state, and local governments do now. One cannot enter a pool hall or a bar or a restaurant anymore, without encountering “No Smoking” signs. Not exactly welcoming the likes of Minnesota Fats,
. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Wikipedia has an informative entry on the anti-smoking campaign from its early beginnings.

Anti-Cigarette League of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Anti-Cigarette League of America was an anti-smoking advocacy group which had substantial success in the anti-smoking movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States in passing anti-smoking legislation. The campaign sought to pass smoking bans in public places as well as ban cigarettes themselves.

History

The group was founded in 1899 by Lucy Page Gaston, a teacher, writer, lecturer and member of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Gaston maintained that cigarette smoking was a "dangerous new habit, particularly threatening to the young and thus likely to lead to the use of alcohol and narcotics, so prevalent in the 1890s." Gaston's mission attracted the attention and the patronage of like-minded progressives and members of the WCTU. By 1901 the organization claimed a membership of 300,000, with a paid staff overseeing chapters throughout the United States and Canada.[1]
Between 1890 and 1930, 15 states enacted laws banning the sale, manufacture, possession, or use of cigarettes, and 22 other states considered such legislation.[2]
Even the legislature of the tobacco-producing state of North Carolina considered cigarette prohibition laws in 1897, 1901, 1903, 1905, 1911, 1913, and again in 1917.

Eventually, all the states repealed their cigarette prohibition laws and associated smoking bans in most public places. Kansas was the last to do so, in 1927
The anti-smoking campaign in America from its beginning in the 19th Century was compatible with the growth of Progressivism in the U.S, that is, with the rise of political clamoring for more controls and the regulation of private choices and behavior. One of my favorite short independent films is “Regulation.”.
In a not too-far-fetched plot (not too far from the Democrats’ progressive designs on Americans), a social worker from the Department of Health and Human Services appears to attach a “happy patch” or a micro doser to a young girl in conformance with a law that guarantees that every child has a “right” to be happy, “by law.”. The girl offers the social worker an unanswerable argument about why she does not want a “happy patch.” Unable to counter the girl’s argument, the social worker resorts deception and reports the girl’s non-compliance.
There are dozens of articles on the anti-smoking and anti-secondhand smoke issues.
We can’t overlook the Nazi contribution to the campaign. Hitler was a notorious non- and anti-smoker. Had he won WWI he likely would have banned smoking  not only in Germany but in all his conquered countries.

Nuremberg

The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933–45

BMJ 1996313 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1450 (Published 07 December 1996)Cite this as: BMJ 1996;313:1450
·         Article
·         Related content
·         Metrics
·         Responses
1.       Robert N Proctor, professor of the history
·         Accepted 6 November 1996
Historians and epidemiologists have only recently begun to explore the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. Germany had the world's strongest antismoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s, encompassing bans on smoking in public spaces, bans on advertising, restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and the world's most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The anti-tobacco campaign must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily purity, which also motivated many other public health efforts of the era.
Medical historians in recent years have done a great deal to enlarge our understanding of medicine and public health in Nazi Germany. We know that about half of all doctors joined the Nazi party and that doctors played a major part in designing and administering the Nazi programmes of forcible sterilisation, “euthanasia,” and the industrial scale murder of Jews and gypsies.1 2 Much of our present day concern for the abuse of humans used in experiments stems from the extreme brutality many German doctors showed towards concentration camp prisoners exploited to advance the cause of German military medicine.

Tobacco in the Reich


One topic that has only recently begun to attract attention is the Nazi anti-tobacco movement.4 5 6 Germany had the world's strongest antismoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s, supported by Nazi medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the race.1 4 Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking. Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major fascist leaders of Europe—Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco—were all non-smokers.7 Hitler was the most adamant, characterizing tobacco as “the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor.” 

Hitler's so-called anti-cigarette actions were quite limited, e.g., he merely "banned smoking by uniformed police, SA and SS men in public, even when off-duty." And he merely approved "severe restrictions [not a ban] on the advertising of cigarettes," Hobhouse, supra, p 232. Germany continues even through the year 2006 to oppose banning such ads. See Germany's lawsuit to stop the European Union from establishing such as ban: Germany v Parliament and Council (Case C-380/03, 12 December 2006). Germany lost, the court upheld banning most forms of cigarette advertising.

The Nazis' Forgotten Anti-Smoking Campaign

The Third Reich viewed tobacco as a threat to the health of the "chosen folk."
TRACY BROWN HAMILTON
JULY 9, 2014

DENIS DEFREYNE/FLICKR
“Nazi Germany was governed by a health-conscious political elite bent on European conquest and genocidal extermination,” writes Stanford researcher Robert Proctor in his book, The Nazi War on Cancer, “and tobacco at the time was viewed as one among many ‘threats’ to the health of the chosen folk.”
In 1939, German scientist Franz Müller presented the first epidemiological study linking tobacco use and cancer. In 1943, a paper prepared by German scientists Eberhard Schairer and Erich Schöniger at Jena University confirmed this study, and convincingly established for the first time that cigarette smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer.
Research by German doctors also brought to light the harmful effects of secondhand smoke for the first time, and coined the term “passive smoking.” But Proctor says the findings cannot be separated from the context in which they were realized.

According to Proctor, Schairer and Schöniger’s paper needs to be seen as “a political document, a product of the Nazi ideological focus on tobacco as a corrupting force whose elimination would serve the cause of ‘racial hygiene.’” The Nazi agenda was centered on the idea of establishing and maintaining a German Aryan master race that was free of illness or impurity, and tobacco was just one of the many influences that could weaken the so-called Übermensch.
“Nazism was a movement of muscular, health-conscious young men worried about things like the influence of Jews in German culture and the evils of communism,” Proctor says, “but also about the injurious effects of white bread, asbestos, and artificial food dyes.”
According to an article in Toxicological Sciences, before 1900, lung cancer was extremely rare worldwide, but incidents of the disease increased dramatically by the 1930’s. This coincided with the growing popularity of cigarette smoking beginning toward the end of the 20th century, but a link was never identified between lung cancer and smoking until Nazi-era scientists made the connection.
Research into the harmful effects of tobacco was funded by the Institute for the Struggle Against Tobacco, which was established in 1941and funded by Hitler’s Reich Chancellery. The Institute was led by Karl Astel, a doctor, high-ranking SS officer and fervent anti-Semite, according to Proctor.
Among other things, Astel’s institute funded and distributed pamphlets and articles about the harmful effects of tobacco, including a collection of Goethe’s views on the subject. The institute conducted research into the potential damage or mutations that nicotine could cause to the genetic material of the master race
Nazi Germany’s well-known obsession with creating a master Aryan race led to many atrocities. But from these same sinister motives came research that may have had health benefits for the German people during World War II—studies on the dangers of smoking that led to the most advanced anti-tobacco campaign of its time. Unfortunately, the campaign was only concerned with protecting the health of Aryan Germans.

The wholesale ban of smoking on the Veterans Administration Medical campus in October 2020 is an outgrowth (with a $50 fine) that leaves one wondering about the actual motive for establishing the ban. Is it just an experiment in sociological engineering or manipulation? A flexing of Progressive muscle? Is it really a concern about the vets, the children, the elderly, or the planet? Or is it an exercise in conformity with the consensus that smoking and secondhand (or passive) smoking comprisa violation of non-smokers’ rights? Universal bans, such as Tim Kane’s last act as governor of Virginia, represented the statewide seizure of private property and the obliteration of freedom of choice. The result was the obedience of bars and restaurants and businesses; of their compliance, and of the compliance of their customers or employees.

If enough people who claim to be harmed by secondhand smoke can agitate for a smoking ban, there are always politicians ready to endorse a law in their favor; regardless of the ruination of businesses and private lives. The “harm” is too often feigned or faked; non-smokers who put on a show to demonstrate their opposition to smoking and secondhand smoke do so to demonstrate their personal dislike of tobacco and their agreement with the anti-smokers.

Their dislike of it should not be the legislative basis of law. But in an era of Progressivism their whims become the rule.  Everyone must obey and comply. Smokers who exercise their rights are regarded as pariahs to be shunned and even punished with social snubbing or an alienation from normal contact with others.
The harm of smoking and “passive’ smoking may be real, but it cannot be applied to all individuals; it depends on a person’s physical make-up. I’ve read many stories of individuals who live past 100 years but who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years. There are numerous studies of the harm (government and private), dating from

the 19th century on through the Nazi period to the present. I am tempted to doubt the purpose of these studies. The harm of smoking and “passive’ smoking may be real, but it cannot be applied to all individuals; it depends on a person’s physical make-up. I’ve read many stories of individuals who live past 100 years but who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years. There are numerous studies of the harm (government and private), dating from the 19th century on through the Nazi period to the present. I am tempted to doubt the purpose of most of these studies; their purpose seems to be to prove a priori that smoking is bad and must be suppressed.
This is not to say that Secretary Wilkie of the VA is a fascist. But it is to suggest that his smoking ban and policy is in line with the worst consequences of political and social collectivism.

The wholesale ban of smoking on the Veterans Administration Medical campus in October 2020 is an outgrowth (with a $50 fine) that leaves one wondering about the actual motive for establishing the ban. Is it just an experiment in sociological engineering or manipulation? A flexing of Progressive muscle? Is it really a concern about the vets, the children, the elderly, or the planet? Or is it an exercise in conformity with the consensus that smoking and secondhand (or passive) smoking is a violation of non-smokers’ rights? Universal bans, such as Tim Kane’s last act as governor of Virginia, represented the statewide seizure of private property and the obliteration of freedom of choice. The result was the obedience of bars and restaurants and businesses; of their compliance, and of the compliance of their customers or employees.

If enough people who claim to be harmed by secondhand smoke can agitate for a smoking ban, there are always politicians ready to endorse a law in their favor; regardless of the ruination of businesses and private lives. The “harm” is too often feigned or faked; non-smokers who put on a show to demonstrate their opposition to smoking and secondhand smoke do so to demonstrate their personal dislike of tobacco and their agreement with the anti-smokers.

Their dislike of it should not be the legislative basis of law. But in an era of Progressivism their whims become the rule.  Everyone must obey and comply. Smokers who exercise their rights are regarded as pariahs to be shunned and even punished with social snubbing or an alienation from normal contact with others.

The harm of smoking and “passive’ smoking may be real, but it cannot be applied to all individuals; it depends on a person’s physical make-up. I’ve read many stories of individuals who live past 100 years but who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years. There are numerous studies of the harm (government and private), dating from  

the 19th century on through the Nazi period to the present. I am tempted to doubt the purpose of these studies. The harm of smoking and “passive’ smoking may be real, but it cannot be applied to all individuals; it depends on a person’s physical make-up. I’ve read many stories of individuals who live past 100 years but who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years. There are numerous studies 
of the harm (government and private), dating from the 19th century on through the Nazi period to the present. I am tempted to doubt the purpose of most of these studies; their purpose seems to be to prove a priori that smoking is bad and must be suppressed.

This is not to say that Secretary Wilkie of the VA is a fascist. But it is to suggest that his smoking ban and policy is in line with the worst consequences of political and social collectivism.

Edward Cline (February 2020)