The largest misconception in the public view today would be Public Health organizations, Tobacco Control and Environmental Tobacco Smoke lobbying is something, which originated from the public. It is actually something, which was introduced to the public serving industrial profit above all else.

The Process of HIA developed long term [10 year] and short term [one year] goals developed an implementation period process testing and adjustment protocols and went to work. They assigned responsibilities to designates, assured all members would screen all public speak in order to not discredit their partners. Most important they analyzed the impediments and the subjects being treated ALL identified groups to be categorized and dealt with in process.

Some of the language we hear appears to be foolish and poorly conceived however every public statement has a target audience, “ some messages will resound more with one group than with others”.

“ Planting seeds is the secret to success when cultivating a societal garden.”

From the outset participants made the mistake of falling into a plan, which treats people like germs and smoking as a disease. The population view allowed this to be snuck past them, as they too, were being conned into a morally reprehensible process.

The organizers were well educated in developing a fool proof process the one set back as we learned in history there will always be a few Adolph Hitlers in the crowd who can grow power from the public acceptance of fear based decisions. This one demands body purity as an obligation to the State taking us back 100 years in time when Eugenics was being promoted at the expense of racial groups thought to be similar germs which needed treatment.

No one thought of preparing an exit strategy, and now with post prohibition peak effects, which were never planned for, having a reversal effect in cessation numbers the cure is now a poison, which makes it harder for smokers to quit due to the social upheaval.
No one can slow down the enthused hatred bandwagon because no one is in control any longer. A further flaw in the process; leadership is scattered and no one knows who to turn to for advice and adjustment of the process.

The next stage as other lobbies get on board with the follow the leader to riches effect, particularly seen in the Global warming and the anti fat campaigns; the campaign will now have to fall to competition of the stakeholders who will have no choice but to savage the reputation of each other to save the reputations of themselves.

No one realized there is only so much cash to go around before resistance of those paying for the perfect world start to have reservations.

If the plan had a longer implementation period it may well have succeeded. The rush to the finish has already doomed the strategy along with a lot of others based in theory and fear.

Who will see the damage of what was created along with the increased smoking rates already seen, in the scientists who took on the role of politicians and ignored the integrity of discovery and real applied science. Consensus science by any other name remains as always equivalent in every way to a cult belief system.

When is the last time a smoker was told if you quit smoking your life’s quality would be better. A current campaign defining no safe level dispels completely that message. Where now do smokers get the motivation to quit? Enhanced with messages equating smoking to an addiction more powerful than heroin or crack cocaine. Add in the messages smokers kill their neighbors, children and babies, or they are smoking as a result of being too weak to quit, the low life of society. These messages do not sound compliant with encouraging smokers to quit, they seem more in tune with encouraging them to avoid the pain and continue as they are, while building a negative stereotype in the public. What they get predominantly is advertising pushing them toward alternate addictive products, in places where smoking is not allowed.

What the general public is hearing is blatant false advertising equating risk to actual harm, or that Linear and non-linear associations can co-exist in the same cause and effect assessment. Advertisers making use of public and goodwill donated funds, are Utilizing a marketing strategy not normally allowed in many years, with discrimination and hatred as a theme.

We know sex sells, Hate is a much more powerful message. The advertisers find very few instances where the public will allow them to get away with it. The anti smoker message is clearly one of those cases.

Federal law normally prohibits the low life ad campaigns and if targeting any other identifiable group you can name, the advertising sponsor would not only be attacked in the media they would likely be charged with a criminal offense and sued.

The conditioning has worked well because no one in the public has objected to the kind of things product advertisers are teaching their kids. Those who support smoking bans talk about smokers hacking up a lung or on the loosing side of the debate, which never happened. A public who fail to realize Social marketing in the TC intervention is actually although ultimately targeting smokers with it’s hateful message is not conditioning smokers. It is the rest of the community, which is being conditioned.Public Health in the population view, that in cold clinical precision treats people as disease carrying germs. Non-smokers are undeniably the germs being treated with this poisonous medicine.Who are on the loosing side of the debate, which we never saw? If you support the exclusions of smokers in society you are living proof the treatment is working. Encouraging public health to keep up the human experimentation. Poison is now thought to be a cure, however inexplicably an acceptance of poison in community seems to be encouraging those same kids declared in need of protection in accusations of child abuse, to smoke more.

Society is once again being sold a bill of goods in one of the most successful Industry partnered ad campaigns to date. The beauty of this slick ad campaign is we all get to pick up the tab for the ad agency promotions in addition to paying for it’s effect.
Thun on behalf of the American Cancer Society and many others who agreed; by denying the credibility of the James E. Enstrom & Geoffrey C. Kabat research [extensive research findings, describing ETS as largely exaggerated or as a significant health risk,] Thun implied with the funding source perspective, we determine the outcome of theoretical studies. This is proof, if valid; the so-called studies are all simply a matter of selective opinion or political prose. The peer review process is also deemed as next to useless in finding flaws if that opinion is preordained. Further proof is found in the support of current opinions opposing the World Health Organization’s own identical research which was more in agreement with E&K than the many smaller studies primarily written by declared anti smoking advocates and financed by those purchasing the same opinions. Distributed opinions so evident in the public view do not find credibility with timeline applied science or of the larger theoretic studies which should guide the dominance opinion in that perspective. Compare the truth of those realities and the so obviously fear driven reality of current public opinions. A fear of burning leaves at less than fifty paces, with no fear of a mother while treating her children to concentrated diesel exhaust while sitting in a train or bus station?

When we see the effect of smoking ban promotions in the public, targeting the majority who do not smoke utilizing little more than political opinions as evidence to sustain any harm exists in Environmental Tobacco Smoke [ETS]. A minor toxin, which promotions imply cannot be reduced to a level of safety as we do with other toxins with air exchange dilution.

Sir Doll's most recent research of Doctors who smoked demonstrated acceptable levels are possible with effects seen more in those who smoked more and for longer terms. The linear association demonstrated giving reason for smokers to quit, why would we not assume the same of ETS? Consider the populating group fifty years ago there is no logic in current strategies promoting the non-linear association in an idea no safe level exists.

Certainly some were less exposed than others most were not. What is being proposed here is “no safe level” meaning no exposure. The home and car bans contend any exposure causes harm. The teacher’s smoking lounges in the schools can be equated to a neighbors smoke. Health Canada is running commercials stating the smoke residue on a child’s toys are increasing their health risk. They are telling people the air was blue in a woman’s condo from smoke coming through the receptacles, disregarding how much air is in the room does that nonsense sound believable. They are banning smoking in parks with the same nonsense,

The studies are not compliant with that level of exposure demonstrated. If less means less affect, the studies should prove that, meaning a linear association. That leaves us with the question why no PELS have been calculated and applied in assessing the dangers, which made smoking bans viable.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. The science cannot support both linear and
Non-liner association so far no non-linear association has been demonstrated.
This is the deal breaker if they admit to the public a linear association is viable then it is their own fault the standards have not been established decades ago to test ventilation systems with applied science above supposition. If anyone was injured in the workplace because of failures in political opinions, they are also the responsibility of the agencies that should have been monitoring the levels of safety by measurement. PELS and credible advice being given to the public, Moderation strategies which should have been in place instead of running around decrying; no safe level, and it is too difficult, purely in service of political goals with no respect for the damage they may be promoting.

How do we balance theoretic perception with real applied science in this case when both are absolutely opposed? Health Care Reform by it’s current implementation is in fact a downgrading of applied science in favor of theology supporting desired outcomes, decided of course by un-elected politicians masquerading as scientists who define how society should conduct itself according to the majority opinion in the group. This fails when we realize the growing efficiencies of advertising and it’s power in guiding those opinions. Fear-based decisions, which cannot be reversed, are now guided by the power of industry advertisers.

The World Health Organization has found merit in partnering with Industry to sell their messages not realizing as other well intentioned societal groups such as Green peace and MADD discovered, these partnerships are based in self interest, enhancing bottom line efficiencies of industries who seek one goal, regardless of public safety the obligation of the board of directors to it’s investors to continued growth, else stock values decline and investors go elsewhere. The former TC advocacy in 1999 was co-opted by industry partners and has been entirely successful in the promotion of Parma products with public health money co-opted in process to minimize sales expenses universally. Groups like The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Merck and the Center For Science in the public interest, now rise above societal restraint and presume by their lobby advances to dictate directly the wording of Federal, Territorial and Municipal laws. Welcomed as proud partners who have an exclusive voice ordained by their financial position and an obvious ability to dominate advertising campaigns, or to finance sales to the experts in grandiose conventions where they are taught the right language and how to organize an irrefutable truth.

Industry for the most part is responsible for the most damaging environmental effects beyond the obvious smoking, sedentary lifestyles or weight gain effects combined. We have to look at what smoking related diseases might also encompass, in other known causes which Tobacco Control [TC] campaigns efficiently mask. What other toxins in our environment are being protected by the advertisers conditioning, found in HIA described Social Marketing? Social conditioning is being promoted not of smokers but of the general public. The TC message suits Industrial needs including the Tobacco manufacturers who report continued growth with stagnant sales, as the associated mortality figures continue to climb. Deliberate procrastination when partnered health groups know well; the cause has been stabilized for more than five decades. Associated mortality growth they know, cannot be attributed to smoking in the least, yet is by designed protection of their partners ignored in process.

Similarly we are being conditioned in many other prescribed views, which have no alternative opinions. Although many in the applied science community absolutely disagree with the imagined theoretic view, Global warming is viable, the theorists given the dominant power in political circles, are selling us one of the largest expenses this planet has ever considered with a product we will not see for several hundreds of years. The lack of alternate voices balancing the discussion should be troubling to us all. More disturbing is the blatant targeting of how that money will flow from individuals pockets to prop up the sales figures and bottom lines of the same groups financing the promotions.