News

<p>The unfortunate Canadian nation is continuing its march of repression, oppression, total control and fundamental moral inversion. Here are the latest examples – and warnings to other countries. Part 2 of 3.</p>

<p>When the Ft. Greely troops were surveyed in 2005, our troops reported to those asking what was good, bad, or missing from their Meals Ready to Eat (MRE).&nbsp; &quot;Add Tobacco Products&quot; was ranked #16 in the responses, with 16 pages of responses.</p>

<p>The unfortunate Canadian nation is continuing its march towards repression, oppression, total control and fundamental moral inversion. Here are the latest examples – and warnings to other countries. Part 1 of 3.</p>

<p>In spite of every effort by mass-media,&nbsp; pushing, as always, the antismoking fraud, it is clear that the Rolling Stones intended to smoke on stage during their last concert in London. The effort of making it look as if what Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood did was some sort of &ldquo;oversight&rdquo; that &ldquo;unfortunately&rdquo; a cameramen picked up and threw on the big screens (was he fired?) is quite clear in this article &ndash; as is the intellectual paucity of those who have to kiss ass for a living. Why is it &ldquo;unfortunate&rdquo; to show a celebrity smoking?</p>

<p>In a monograph recently released by the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), social science and public policy analyst <a href="https://www.forces.org/Forces_Articles/columnist.php?columnist=John%20Luik">Dr. John C. Luik</a> injects a compellingly researched and argued dose of reality into the debate over whether food and other products are addictive.&nbsp; As Dr. Luik argues, the term &ldquo;addiction&rdquo; reflects a specific pharmacological condition with specific symptoms.&nbsp; However, over the past several decades, activist-minded academics, government regulators, and private attorneys have manipulated the term to support their policy and litigation goals, to the detriment of sound science and public health.</p>