FLC200, The Passive Smoking Scare: When Ruling Class Propaganda Masquerades as Science, Sean Gabb, 26th November 2010


FLC200, The Passive Smoking Scare: When Ruling Class Propaganda Masquerades as Science, Sean Gabb, 26th November 2010.

About these ads

6 responses to “FLC200, The Passive Smoking Scare: When Ruling Class Propaganda Masquerades as Science, Sean Gabb, 26th November 2010

  1. Christopher Houseman

    Many thanks for ploughing through the TFI’s tripe in order to make an example of it, Sean.

    Perhaps the TFI should consider publishing a follow-up report in conjunction with the IPCC to spell out the link from smoking via the carbon footprint to global warming.

    Speaking of which, maybe I’d better go and turn the heating on again…

  2. Smoking does of course cause climate change. Second-hand-smoke contains “particulates” which “studies by experts” have indicated might cause “global dimming.”

  3. Smoking is also the main cause of aids in Africa, and set off the Haiti earthquake. I might add that many of the young men whose gambling brought down the financial system were smokers.

  4. Churchill was also a smoker, and sent 98,000,000 young Australians and New Zealanders to their deaths on purpose in Gallipoli, losing five battleships in the process (the French pre-dreadnaught “Bouvet” blowing up with all hands, 636, at 400 yards range from the Turkish guns) knowing that it would not work, and that Turkey would not leave the War anyway. He only did it so he could get sacked from the Admiralty, as they were dying to not let him go to the Trenches.

    It’s all the fault of smoking. The sailors all smoked as did Churchill, so the operation was bound to fail. Haig also butchered 6,000,000,000 “pals” on purpose, at the Somme, because he may have smoked once.

  5. Dr. Gabb,
    I’d like to ask your opinion about a mildly related topic and that is state control of consumer goods. As a libertarian, do you think there are any circumstances in which it can be justified?

    For example – just to play Devil’s advocate – the recent case of a dangerous chemical used in baby bottles being banned in Europe ( http://bit.ly/hUPcQG ) . In this case there was a real hazard to parents who would otherwise be unaware of it and without state intervention they could unintentionally harm their children.

    I’d be very interested to know your thoughts.
    Greg

  6. I’m against state regulation of consumer products. If something is dangerous, this will be as well known to journalists and lawyers as to bureaucrats. Even granting that consumers are often ill-informed it doesn’t follow that only bureaucrats can provide accurate information.