Saturday, 20 December 2014

(Ab)using libertarians as useful idiots

Suppose you're a tobacco lobbyist and you want to attack new anti-smoking laws. How to reach your goal ?

Being a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, it would be a bad idea trying to reach the public by directly contacting the media, as you'll quickly be outed as nothing but an industry's spokesman. Lobbyists need other ways to spread their message. By the late 1970's tobacco lobbyists had a problem though: even though the industry created lots of pseudoscientific documents trying to spread doubt tobacco really causes cancer, the public started to be well aware smoking causes lung-cancer. Trying to attack the science wasn't enough to undermine anti-tobacco laws.

A new strategy was needed. 

The industry wrote:
The only way that the right to smoke can be preserved is to link it up with the freedom of lifestyle position, and with the broader libertarian critique of 'health fascism' and the paternalism and authoritarianism of the medical establishment. Our 'special interest' can only be viably defended as part and parcel of broader coalition. We have to shift the focus of the debate from the enemy's strong ground--health--to our strong ground--freedom of choice and individual liberty.

The only thing tobacco lobbyists needed to do to spread this message was redirecting the bias of libertarians, and changing the libertarian hatred against "regulations" into a hatred against "regulations against smoking". Try opening any random libertarian website and the word 'freedom' will pop up everywhere. To kill anti-smoking laws, tobacco lobbyists started spreading the message in libertarian circles that laws against tobacco were undermining personal freedom. 

To spread the tobacco lobby's message of anti-tobacco laws being an attack on personal freedom, lobbyists needed to get in contact with libertarians stupid enough to buy this message. Using their bias, tobacco lobbyists' objective was turning libertarians into useful idiots, lobbying for the tobacco industry. Without the libertarians even realizing.

This document in the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library illustrates how lobbyists selected their targets:

Private & Confidential

An ex-member of the Labour Party, a founder member of the S .D .P., and the recipient of the first Thatcher Award, David Marsland is now an out-standing free market sociologist at the West London Institute.
Author of many books, covering issues as diverse as education, health, business and the welfare state, Marsland is a hard-core rebel against the 'health-fascist' establishment. A keen smoker with a hatred of the welfare state, Marsland is an affable and well respected academic who is open to private work and easy to approach.
Have no hesitation mentioning my name.

One of the most prolific and controversial philosophers of his generation, Professor Anthony Flew will go down in history as one of the most outstanding Conservative thinkers of the twentieth century.
Hated by the left, Flew is an avowed anti-statist who is totally opposed to the welfare establishment with all its "modern trendy ideas". Aware that life, and the act of being human, inevitably involves risk, Flew would be a sound friend in the battle against the anti-smoking lobby.
He knows Chris.

An ex-Anarcho-Socialist turned Free Market Libertarian, Bill is a fascinating, young and dynamic lecturer who teaches the Sociology of Morality.
Specialising in such subjects as Society and Pornography, Moral Panics and the Sociology of Belief Systems, Bill is a radical thinker opposed to state intervention - especially on issues of personal morality . A smoker himself, he is ideologically sympathetic to the defence of smoker's rights. Mention my name.

Christie Davis is one of the most senior and well respected right-wing sociologists in the UK. Although he has a broad range of academic interests, he specialises in the sociology of humour and contemporary criminology.
A radical free marketeer he carries sound ideological baggage when it comes issues of risk and personal freedom.

Although a hard-core Libertarian activist since his days in Conservative Students, Ashford is nevertheless an eclectic thinker. An ardent free marketeer, he is also unusually an overt proEuropean.
A member of the British Political Science Association, he is a well connected politics lecturer, who is sympathetic to the paradigm of personal liberty.

An outstanding, charismatic and charming public speaker, Davids Gladstone's primary interest is the growth of the welfare state) during the twentieth century . A socially well connected direct descendant of Prime Minister Gladstone, he is sound on the subject of the nanny state, and at one with the Libertarian right on issues of personal freedom.
A very much under used asset on our side - mention, me on introduction.

A classical liberal in economic and political outlook, Bourlet is a rather quiet and largely unknown academic who has all the right political instincts .
He would be perfect as a 'name' to front projects. Mention me on introduction.

Although O'Keeffe claims he is a Libertarian, he is more accurately described as a liberal-Conservative . Primarily interested in education and the welfare state, he is a superb writer always willing to undertake projects for private business interests.
With a number of close political contacts in parliament, and particularly the House of Lords, O'Keeffe is a well placed academic with an air of authority . From time to time he appears on TV and always performs well Mention me.

A young, but already prolific writer with a superb style, Davies is best described as Britain's foremost Libertarian Historian.
Sound on all economic, social and political issues, his only weakness is that his manner is not particularly well suited for the media . Nevertheless, is a charming man who is always approachable. Mention my name on introduction.
An academic genius, Gabb is a Libertarian Conservative who has accidentally ended up being born 200 hundred too years latet A character best suited for the Reform Club around 1780 he has an eccentric and endearing manner - and a rapier brain.
A former member of the Lord Chancellor's Department at the Home Office and a special adviser to the Slovak Prime Minister, Gabb is totally sound on matters of personal freedom and is an outstanding candidate to ghost academic material. Mention me.

With a sound political outlook and a superb knowledge of economics, Allan is always interested in private commissions which demand a robust defence of the principles of liberty.
A man who "loves to lunch", he is a great networker and has a truly unbelievable range of useful contacts for almost every occasion and operation imaginable.
Mention me.

A quick check learns how succesful the tactic of the industry was: 
Anthony Flew, Bill Thompson, Dennis O'Keeffe, Sean Gabb, Christie Davies & Steven Davies all became active in the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, a fake grassroots organisation set up by the tobacco industry.

Sean Gabb describes how he became interested in the subject tobacco:
My interest in tobacco, and in all the news regarding it, stems almost entirely from libertarian principle. I believe that people should have the right to do with themselves as they will, regardless of any possible harm to them.

Feeding their bias, the tobacco industry managed to turn no less than 6 of the 11 libertarians above into useful idiots.


  1. The tobacco industry spent decades "contacting" the media via press releases,bought op-eds, faux papers, buying advertisements, and more. Except that ended in the '70s and '80s.... Read the work of Robert Proctor:

  2. The tobacco document above must be from the 1990's though

    1. No, they are from decades earlier.

    2. The document, as part of a larger collection of documents, was available for antismoker (and eventually public) scrutiny in the late-1990s.

  3. 1991-1992 Gabb was advisor the Slovak Prime minister, a fact mentioned in the tobacco document. Therefore the document is from the 1990's

  4. They did much better with the successor effort that turned into the fostering of the TEA Party.

    Bob Proctor talked at AGU in San Francisco yesterday,as part of a session for geoscientists to learn more about the tactics they face born from the tobacco playbook.
    Although I knew most of it, I did learn a few new things, like Nobel physicist & climate dismissive Ivar Giaever's involvement with cigarette companies.

    The freedom theme also shows up in the movie Merchants of Doubt, which was limited-screened Thursday, with real release in March.

    The freedom theme is of course included in the e-cigarettes campaign. Note that the freedom theme has often covered more than Libertarians, but variations have been used to appeal to teen/young adult and relate to people fighting for civil rights, with specific variants for women, minorities and LGBT.

    1. I'm curious to know if the film at all reflects the criticism of the book's historical shortomings , as refected in the comments on the book's website.

      Relying as it does on cinematic devices like cutaways to mislead the reader , the book certanly reads like a filmscript.

  5. John, I was at yesterday's AGU sesson on denialism too. Accoding to my notes, Proctor said 26 Nobel Laureates took money from the tobacco industry....

  6. David
    Yes, I think 26 was about right. I didn't count, since I was scanning for ones that show up on my usual radar screen. Bob zipped through those slides fairly quickly, but I did see Ivar Giaever. (Unfortunately, I had to run out for lunch meeting so I couldn't stay for questions, or I'd have asked him to go back to that list.)

    For anyone who wasn't there, or isn't familiar with the topic:
    0) Bob is probably the world's foremost scholar about the tobacco industry.

    1) See his Golden Holocaust. I wrote a review, so won't repeat here, but if you want to read one book about the tobacco industry, this is it.

    2) Chapter 16 covers Distraction Research, Decoy Research and Filibuster Research. As he notes, the tobacco companies actually sponsored a lot of good research, some of which even ;led to Nobels ... but at least sometimes, this was funded in ways that weren't obvious ..
    Tobacco funded studies that might examine other causes for disease ... but strangely, not tobacco.
    Nobelists are mentioned on p. 269, 272, 454, 614n45.
    He found more later.

    Chapter 23 is "Penetrating the universities"

    One really needs to read those to understand the nuances of what was going on. Much legitimate research was funded, so one cannot necessarily castigate those who took the money, especially since at least some of it came indirectly through foundations or other funding routes that could seem OK.

    One might wonder about somebody who often visited Philip Morris in the 1980s/1990s.. For an exercise, people might look up Ivar Giaever at LTDL and see what they think.

    Try This one, for example.
    "0915-1015 Ivar Giaever:
    Can the modern theory of chaos, fractal mathematics, etc. be applied to the problem of carcinogenesis and cancer?"

  7. What a load of junk. There are some people that can be led by the nose by anything antismoking. They’re fully fledged disciples of the antismoking cult. They can only process one type of information – antismoking.

    Are you aware that antismoking has a long, very twisted, 400+ year history, some of it involving torture and execution, most of it involving prohibition? You would never know it from listening to antismokers. Most antismokers aren’t even aware of the history. That’s how “knowledgeable” they are.

    There were antismoking crusades long before the large tobacco companies came on the scene. There wear antismoking crusades long before the mass-produced cigarette. There were antismoking crusades long before movies and mass media. There were antismoking crusades long before attempts, however bastardized, at scientific investigation of smoking. There were antismoking crusades long before the recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”.

    The common theme over those 400+ years is the extent to which rabid antismokers will lie to rationalize their hatred of smoke/smokers/smoking. There’s more than ample evidence over the last few centuries that the rabid antismoking mentality is a significant mental disorder. Yet here we are again.

    It’s America that’s popularized antismoking insanity – again, and which other countries are following suit. The problem with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history. America has a terrible history with this sort of “health” fanaticism/zealotry/extremism or “clean living” hysteria – including antismoking - that goes back more than a century.

    Antismoking crusades typically run on inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and bigotry. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale.

  8. The current antismoking crusade, very much in the eugenics tradition – involving the same medically-aligned personnel and repugnant methodology, is much like crusades over the previous 400 years. It is a moralizing, social-engineering, eradication/prohibition crusade decided upon in the 1970s by a small, self-installed clique of [medically-oriented] fanatics operating under the auspices of the World Health Organization and sponsored by the American Cancer Society (see the Godber Blueprint ). This little, unelected group, using much the same inflammatory rhetoric of its fanatical predecessors, decided for everyone that tobacco-use should be eradicated from the world – for a “better” (according to them) world. These fanatics were speaking of secondhand smoke “danger” and advocating indoor and OUTDOOR smoking bans years before the first study on SHS, and extortionate taxes on tobacco years before contrived “cost burden” analyses of smoking: In the 1970s, populations – particularly in relatively free societies – weren’t interested in elitist social-engineering, particularly by a group (medically-aligned) that had a horrible recent track record (eugenics). Given that their antismoking crusade would have otherwise stalled, the zealots conjured secondhand smoke “danger” to advance the social-engineering agenda, i.e., inflammatory propaganda. Until only recently the zealots claimed they weren’t doing social engineering, that they weren’t moralizing. Well, that’s a lie that’s been told many times over the last few decades.

    The zealots’ goal this time is not to ban the sale of tobacco but to ban smoking in essentially all the places that people smoke (combined with extortionate taxes), indoors and out. Up until recently the social-engineering intent has been masqueraded as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. But even this fraud can no longer be hidden in that bans are now being instituted for large outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, university campuses where there is not even any concocted “health” issue for nonsmokers. This dangerous mix of the medically-aligned attempting social engineering is a throwback to a century ago. We seem to have learned nothing of value from very painful lessons of only the recent past.

  9. If we’re going to consider lobbying tactics, why not also look at antismoking conduct?

    A critical meeting place for antismokers has been the World Conferences on Smoking & Health since the late-1960s. This is where they have long formulated their “tactics” for the years ahead. This is the contribution from Simon Chapman, a high-profile Australian antismoker, at the 5th World Conference in 1983 and taken from his manual on “how to do propaganda”, “The Lung Goodbye”:

    “Such a list could be added to considerably, but most entries would be characterized by being somehow cast in a mythological good versus evil battle in an arena observed by mass numbers of people. The good (health/clean air/children) versus evil (cancer/uncaring, callous industry) dimension is the ineluctable bottom line in the whole issue and a rich reservoir for spawning a great deal of useful social drama, metaphor, and symbolic politics that is the stuff of ‘news value’ and which is almost always to the detriment of the industry.” p.11 (see Godber Blueprint)

    This entire “Us vs Them” framework was also contrived by the fanatics decades ago. Having cast themselves in the role of the “mythological good” (natch) battling the “mythological evil”, the zealots are always right and benevolent. Anyone who dares disagree with them is always wrong and part of some “evil” tobacco industry “conspiracy”. It’s all for manipulative, “theatrical” effect – although there are some in the antismoking movement that believe they are “god-like” - and has been quite successfully used for the last three decades on an essentially superficial/gullible political class, media, and public. Disagree with the fanatics and you’ll be accused of being an emissary of the “evil” tobacco industry, a promoter of cancer, and a child corrupter/killer. The zealots and their financial partners (government and Pharma) must have regular belly laughs at how all too easy the brainwashing has been.

  10. Jules, you’re citing tobaccotactics org. Why not also cite tctactics org?

    A commenter refers to Robert Proctor. “Bob” has been a long-time anti-tobacco industry activist. He never refers to the history of antismoking other than the N#zi “war on tobacco” (see link in earlier post). When the German archival information was made available in the mid-1990s, it was Proctor that went in to help with the translation. The healthists (crypto-eugenicists) were caught with their pants down. The WHO’s “Tobacco Control” program was already well entrenched with many countries aboard. It was quite evident that the current antismoking crusade sounds very much like the N#zi (and earlier American) crusade, involving the same personnel – the medically-aligned - and flimsy statistics. Proctor attempted to contain the “fallout”. The meandering in his articles on German anti-tobacco is breath-taking. Proctor’s primary [antismoking] intent was to advise against “playing the N#zi card” in evaluating contemporary anti-tobacco.

    Interesting is that Proctor makes no reference – ever – to American eugenics (also antismoking) or the longer history still of antismoking generally. He is either intentionally omitting critical information or he is an incompetent historian. I would suggest that the former is the case. Antismokers are notorious for omitting critical information. When it can’t be avoided, they then attempt the “smooth-over” tactics.

    In 2009 Proctor was rebuked by a circuit court judge for attempting to interfere with researchers in a tobacco case:

    It provides another insight into how antismoking activists operate. It has to be remembered that the antismokers promote themselves as the “righteous” ones battling the “evil” tobacco industry. It’s just another antismoker contrivance.

  11. To spread the tobacco lobby's message of anti-tobacco laws being an attack on personal freedom, lobbyists needed to get in contact with libertarians stupid enough to buy this message. Using their bias, tobacco lobbyists' objective was turning libertarians into useful idiots, lobbying for the tobacco industry. Without the libertarians even realizing.

    Jules, that’s a bit rich. You sound as if you’ve been gotten to by antismoking fanaticism. Have a look at the Godber Blueprint. You’ll notice that the antismoking fanatics intended, as they then did, to lobby all sorts of groups/individuals (e.g., religious, feminist), to get them “on board”. There was also much strategizing on how to get the media on board, how to maintain a high media profile, and how to avoid questioning. From the World Conferences on Smoking & Health, the antismokers also have the online GlobaLink service. It connects antismokers around the world. A person has to be recommended by an existing Globalink member to gain access. This allows them to “strategize” in complete secrecy.

    Jules, you’ll note that the document repository you’re referring to is located at the University of California (San Francisco). UCSF is an epicenter of antismoking fanaticism. The Tobacco Control Center there is run by Glantz who’s been with the current antismoking crusade from the very beginning. He was one of the original creators of Americans for Non-Smokers’ Rights. Glantz is interesting in that since the 1980s he’s been presented as a professor of medicine or professor of cardiology. Yet he’s never done any formal medical training. He makes all manner of economics pronouncements. Yet he has no post-graduate qualifications in economics. His latest venture – another WHO “initiative” – is attempting to get an “R”-rating for any movies containing depictions of smoking.

    For those not familiar, Glantz is no “professor of medicine”. He is a mechanical engineer that was given a professorship of medicine by UCSF to lend “medical weight” to his antismoking ranting and raving. He’s a fraud promoting the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority” along with many of his buddies in Public Health and Tobacco Control.

    According to his online biography, Glantz was awarded a Ph.D. in 1973 from Stanford University in Applied Mechanics and Engineering Economic Systems. From this mechanical background, Glantz undertook a postdoctoral year at Stanford University in Cardiology (1975), and another postdoctoral year at the University of California (San Francisco) in cardiovascular research (1977). It appears that the connection to cardiology is in “applied mechanical” terms; he has no formal training in medicine. In 1977, Glantz was given the academic posting of assistant professor in Cardiology at UCSF; this was upgraded to a full professorship in 1987. Glantz is currently a Professor of Medicine and Director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education at the University of California (San Francisco). It appears that the “medical” status serves essentially to “legitimize” the antitobacco status and exploit Glantz’s high profile in this area.

    Glantz is a “glorified mechanic”. Astounding is that this extremist that travels the world pontificating on the “benefits” of extreme antismoking measures has been allowed to present himself for the last few decades as a professor of medicine or professor of cardiology. There doesn’t appear to be even one instance where a journalist has asked fundamental questions of Glantz – have you had any clinical training in medicine, where did you complete your internship, with which medical board are you certified to practice medicine. The fraud should have been exposed years ago in the MSM along with the academic system in California that bestowed upon him the “professorship”.

  12. To spread the tobacco lobby's message of anti-tobacco laws being an attack on personal freedom….

    We now have the advantage of a few decades of hindsight to evaluate the intent of anti-tobacco laws. And guess what? Anti-tobacco laws are an attack on personal freedom.

    Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.

    The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after. Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

    While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.

    1. On top of all of this, there are now instances where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate taxes.

      At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing “social engineering” (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies peddling their useless “nicotine replacement” products. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American “model”) and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).

      The State of Oregon in the USA is proposing a smoking ban on its entire 320+ mile coastline:
      "Even though you're outdoors — and it might be really windy — the particulates from secondhand smoke are still in the air and can still impact people around it and downwind," Havel said.

      The claim of “hazard” in these outdoor spaces is an outright lie.

      The only intent of such bans is to progressively ban smoking, a salami slice at a time, in almost all the places that people typically smoke.

  13. Just recapping some of the earlier posts. When the smoking bans started coming in the late-1980s, journalists asked if this was a “slippery slope” to prohibition. Journalists were immediately dismissed with the antismoker claim that any suggestion of a “slippery slope” was just tobacco industry fear-mongering…… a tobacco industry “conspiracy”. Guess what? That’s a lie as we can now see.

    Antismokers were also asked if the precedents set for tobacco would produce a slippery slope to other products. The reply was the standard “that’s tobacco industry fear-mongering”. Tobacco is a “unique product” claimed the antismokers. Guess what? That’s a lie too. There are now Public Health advocates queuing up to apply the Tobacco Control “template” to their pet targets, e.g., sugar, salt, alcohol.

    Here’s an excerpt from an antismoking “advocacy toolkit” (from a Canadian toolkit, but will be the same around the world, and relevant to bans of any sort, indoor and out) that provides further insight into antismoking activism. The toolkit is very light on facts. It highlights the tricks/tactics used to contrive appearances – from flooding comments boards with inflammatory rhetoric, to conducting their own “polls”, to giving the appearance of wholesale public support for smoking bans – to manipulate the public and politicians/law-makers:

    “For the next few months, strive to ensure there are positive media stories, letters to the editor, etc., that tout how well the bylaw changes are working. There will no doubt be a backlash from smokers in the beginning until they get used to the changes.
    In the meantime, you have to counter their negative comments in the media, in comment sections of online news pieces and blogs, on radio call-in shows, etc.
    Your job is to make politicians continue to believe that they did the right thing.”
    It is not unheard of for councillors to backtrack on their decision and water down legislation.” (p. 48)


    It doesn’t matter if, after a ban, business is deteriorating, smokers feel more ostracized, and nonsmokers become more neurotic and bigoted. It wouldn’t matter if the whole place is crashing down. The role of the antismoking activist is to try to convince particularly law-makers that everyone just loves the ban; that even smokers are utterly ecstatic about being shoved out of their usual socializing and having further [baseless] restrictions placed on them.

    I can provide numerous examples of this “con job” if anyone’s interested.

  14. I'm feeling large quantities of Q.E.D.

  15. Well, Jules, Suppose you're a smoker and you want to resist the erosion of your civil liberties to the by those who have laready taken away your right to sit at a lunch counter or in the back of a bus-- What sort of movement would you call upon bien pensant advocates of liberty and the persuit of happines to start ?

    1. Maybe they should hire a screenwriter?

    2. Russel, i'm not really sure what your point is. Of course they were looking amongst the 'natural' allies.

    3. Jules, literally billions of smokers have been targeted for behavior modification and social engineering .

      Is it really alien to your conception of the world that this repression naturally arouses massive indignation and constitutes a political base in its own right ?

  16. An industry setting up fake-grassroots organisations, hiding its funding (and only being paid if they manage to get sub-par op-ed published). Trough manipulation & payments the industry maneged altering the output of the people being(ab)used. Sorry, but is something i do not longer consider to be "a political base", but imho should be called "a lobby". Apart from any *real* politicol/psychological/sociological discussion on personal freedom (optimistically assuming something like "free choice" actually exits)

    1. Advertising happens-
      As surely as smokers have yet to assert their civil rights en masse , in the manner that has led to the cultural emancipation of women, blacks and gays , they are not organized nationally to the level of funding lobbyists to demand legislative redess of their abrogated civil rights .

      The ver idea causes communitarians acute cognitive dissonance.

  17. John 12/21 - Smoking kills a few million people a year. How many more are you looking for?

  18. John: The ban in Oregon is more about butts than second-hand smoke. Smokers are filthy pigs who too often throw their garbage anywhere they please. It's putrid and it's time that stopped. Smoke in your own home, not on public property. They I can stay away from its filth.

  19. John: Let's be very, very clear here: You have a right, I suppose, to ruin your own health. But not mine. Keep your disgusting habit away from me, in all its manifestations. You are free to live in filth, but you can't force the rest of us too.

    You sound very much like an addict, trying to justify their habit. Which I suppose you are. Get some help, before you kill yourself.