We are glad to publish this letter by Michael McFadden, author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brain” in response to an article published by The Guardian, in the United Kingdom, concerning the situation that the smoking ban has created in British mental institutions. Please read the Guardian’s article (link here or at the bottom of the page) before reading Mr. McFadden’s letter below. The letter, of course, was not published by the public health collabo Guardian because it highlights the brutality and the stupidity (on top of the fanatical dishonesty) of the British “public health” institutions. As McFadden points out, the problems caused by the smoking ban in mental institutions were perfectly predictable and not "unforeseen", as the piece wants to project.
That leaves us only with two possible explanations: either public health authorities are mentally retarded — and thus they belong inside the institutions that they are regulating, or they are utterly irresponsible con men — and thus they belong inside jails.
Be that as it may, remember one thing: the mandate of the mass-media is to spread the notion that public health is right, honest and true, and thus that the smoking ban is fair and successful because it fights "evil" smoking, of which not even one death can be scientifically demonstrated. In short, the job of the mass-media is to induce the public to think that Fascism not only is acceptable, but that it must be the law of the land.
_________________________________
Dear Editor, Foreseen Consequences…
Psychiatrist Dr. John Dent wrote to the Guardian on Nov. 3rd about the "unforeseen consequence" of numerous small fires and other problems resulting from the smoking ban. It is unfortunate that the NHS did not bother to do proper research before the ban’s implementation, because there was nothing at all "unforeseen" about such results. I wrote and warned about the clear risk of such fire increases resulting from "hidden smoking" and "hasty and improper disposal of smoking materials" five years ago in "Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains," and Free-Choice groups around the globe have long warned of such things to any who would listen.
The UK’s smoking ban was implemented with callous disregard for the lives of all that it would impact, from the pub owners and veterans seeking a warm evening over a pint down to the elderly in hospices and the patients in long term medical/psychiatric facilities. No objection or voice of reason or moderation was listened to: the goal of a total governmentally imposed ban was seen as all-important by the extremists who pushed it, and the "collateral damage" was wilfully ignored.
Dr. Dent’s concern with the effects of the ban on psychiatric patients is doubly justified since so many psychiatric patients "self-medicate" with nicotine to calm themselves, deal with swings of depression, and equalize their moods. The most surprising thing may be simply that the NHS has not yet been hit with crushing lawsuits over this.
Thousands of businesses closed, tens of thousands rendered jobless and on the dole, crowds of smokers filling sidewalks and lounging on properties neighboring banned venues, fires in psychiatric hospitals, dormitories, and airplanes, muggings and rapes in alleyways, a thriving criminal black market due to punitive taxation… all fully foreseen consequences that are now passed off as unexpected by the same folks who claimed their measures would be "cost-free" to society.
They lied about the cost and they lied about the health risks of wisps of smoke in well-ventilated areas, and they should be held fully accountable for the damage they have caused. Smoking bans in the UK, the US, and elsewhere need re-evaluation and amendment for the welfare of everyone. The Great Smoking Prohibition Experiment has been tried, and it has failed, just like America’s Great Prohibition Experiment almost a century ago. The only difference is that this time the politicians were fully warned of the costs and chose to blunder down the path regardless.
I’m from the US, but during my time in the UK a few years ago I grew to love your pubs… and you have destroyed them for the sake of a "confidence trick."
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains"
_________________________________
Reference: Passages from "Brains"
p.135:
If airline pilots are to be believed there may well have been more problems with airline fires started by sneaked and improperly extinguished smokes after the bans went into effect than there were before. According to a pilot writing in the Air Safety Forum of airborne. org’s web pages :
The present no-smoking regulations on board aircraft are welcomed by many. However, these smoking restrictions have resulted in concealed smoking by passengers, and in some cases even crewmembers, increasing risks of an in-flight fire. (www.airborne.org/flying/forum_fly3.htm; Emphasis added.)
p. 146-147
It is not known how many patients put off checking into care facilities when they otherwise should and would have done so, but it’s likely that more than a few depression-caused suicides would have been prevented if patients knew they’d be allowed to smoke after checking themselves in. Perhaps the ultimate tool for fighting such smoking bans will arrive someday in the form that‘s been so popular with the Crusaders: Lawsuits over fires, injuries and deaths caused by ban-created situations may some-day form a potent incentive for their repeal!
Remember that sometimes when fires are labeled as “smoking-related” they may well have been caused by hidden smoking, marijuana smoking, and/or the improper and hasty disposal of forbidden butts. …
Relatives of students or senior citizens injured in dormitory or senior care center fires in situations where no safe indoor smoking accommodations were provided should consider the issue of liability carefully. These bans do result in clear and present harm and should be overturned before they produce more deaths or injuries.
p. 183:
A common news slant on fires in facilities where smoking has been banned is to blame the fires purely on the smoking while never mentioning the fact that they might never have occurred had smoking not been banned and ashtrays and such things were allowed or provided. Generally the fact that a smoking ban was in place is not even mentioned, leaving the viewer or listener to think that such a ban would have prevented the fire!
In addition, there has never yet been an attempt by the media or the government to quantify the number of deaths caused by teenagers sneaking smokes in unsafe manners because of laws or propaganda-inspired parental and school restrictions. Only occasionally do we hear of the more catastrophic instances. One of particular note was the massive Colorado wildfire of 2002 that was sparked by students sneaking smokes behind a school where smoking had been banned: even then, the smoking was the focus, not the ban (P. Solomon Banda. Associated Press 04/26/02).
The pressure to hide smoking can be intense: some schools now treat possession of tobacco products as being exactly the same level of offense as carrying a deadly weapon! An infraction that used to merit a half hour detention for actually using tobacco products can now result in the outright expulsion and total ruination of an entire educational career for the mere possession of such (Alisha Hipwell. “New State Law.” Pittsburgh Post Gazette 04/04/01).
A particularly sad incident in this vein occurred recently not among teens, but among older folks. In 2000 there was a fire at a Philadelphia senior citizens center in which two residents died. From the content of news stories later it seemed that a quickly and improperly disposed of cigarette seems to have started the fire. Of the dozens of stories aired and printed concerning this fire, I saw only one that mentioned that a smoking ban had been put in place before the fire.
While specific details were not released, it seemed likely that the delay in calling for aid during the early and controllable period of the fire may have been due to the fear of the seniors involved that they would be thrown out alone into the street for violating the no-smoking rule. When you’re 80 years old and without other resources such delay and confusion even in a burgeoning emergency would be almost unavoidable.
0 Comments