The answers should not surprise you. It was ... [insert drum roll here] ... done by tobacco control advocates, and no, I do not believe it was impartial, not even remotely. [Insert cymbal crash and rim shot here.] I cannot view the actual survey (published here in the Tobacco Control journal), because you have to pay for that, and I'll be fucking damned if I'm giving my money to TC willingly, particularly since so many of them get taxpayer money anyway. Although, do let me know if anyone is clever enough to socially engineer a copy from the lead author, Professor Richard Edwards (see bottom of page of this link) So let's examine the freely-available abstract:
Secondly, note the methodology, and how the authors "carried out multivariate analyses to identify significant associations among potential determinants (demographics, socioeconomic status, mental health and smoking-related beliefs and behaviours) of support. That sounds rather scientific, it does. It actually means a great deal of fuck-all. How hard is it to ask someone if they want a ban on cigarettes? Do you really need a multivariate anything in this case??
Thirdly, note the results. 65% of smokers in NZ support greater regulation of the tobacco industry. What the holy fuck does that mean exactly? 59% want the government to do more. Well that's because they are used to be nannied at this point, and frankly people prefer to let others think for themselves. No surprise there. 46% supported a ban in 10 years' time. Really? Did anyone ask them that if banning of tobacco in NZ might subsequently lead to increased crime rates and contraband smuggling, like during the prohibition era, would they then support an all-out ban on cigarettes? I doubt it. I doubt it very fucking much.
Finally, note the conclusion utterly follows the tobacco control script, and here I'm going to highlight two very key sentences (emphasis added to both):
The findings suggest that most smokers will support stronger government action to control the tobacco industry and that many support radical ‘endgame’ approaches.
Perceived difficulties in gaining public support should not impede the introduction of rigorous tobacco control measures needed to achieve a tobacco-free New Zealand.
Christ-on-a-bike! Without looking at the study, I can safely infer from the entire abstract that it is one big pile of bollocks designed for one thing: To further the ever-hateful tobacco control agenda. "Radical endgame approach." Gotta love that. Doesn't that sound a bit ... oh, I dunno, 1930s and 40s Germany perhaps?
It doesn't take a genius to realise that smokers are constantly bullied and harassed by anti-smokers, pressure charities and governments. If you are constantly being told that you're a baby killer, that you're harming everyone, and that you are personally responsible for causing the death of the entire fucking world, would you not also think "hmm, maybe if there was no tobacco, I wouldn't smoke, and then people would stop kicking me in the teeth every day."
Because that's just part of the plan of tobacco control, to use smokers against smokers.
Raise your hand if you feel guilty for smoking...
...
OK, good. Thank you.
Now look, if you raised your hand and feel ashamed because you smoke, if you honestly believe you are harming kids and others by smoking, allow me to give you some advice: quit smoking and feel better about yourself. The playground bullies have beaten you into submission and it's game-fucking-over, man. You are not helping to advance civil liberties and freedom, you are perhaps an unwitting hindrance.
To everyone else, stop participating in biased studies and surveys commissioned by tobacco control. Tell them to fuck off and maybe poke them in the eye or something. Kick them in scrotum and run away...
 |
| How to Deal With Tobacco Control Survey Takers |
