The U.S. government legislation masterminded by Hitler himself

The U.S. government legislation masterminded by Hitler himself

Think enforcing a smoking ban is reasonable? So did Hitler. Think smoking is dangerous enough to warrant the government’s stepping in and imposing a smoking ban in all institutions, whether federal or private? So did Hitler.

It’s a little thing, yes. But mark my words: Legislation like this– so heartily embraced by the majority of the American people–is just one domino in a carefully constructed line that, once tipped, we will be powerless to stop.

Nazi Germany didn’t happen overnight–no one would have stood for it. Germany’s good citizens would have been outraged at the prospect of living under such a regime–just as you are right now.

The smoking ban started innocently enough, but it wasn’t long before practically every office, store, restaurant, and even bar, was advertising a smoke-free environment. In a few extreme cases, people have been forbidden to smoke in their own homes. Smokers have, in effect, been sent to the doghouse–though I hear even that is nonsmoking now.

Stripping the rights of smokers has been one of the most remarkable social events of the 20th century. Who would have thought that a pastime so universally popular could evolve from a pleasure, voluntarily initiated, into a heinous and evil “habit” deplored by millions who had never given it a second thought? That just goes to show you the power of propaganda: Say something loud enough and long enough, and even the spinsters who made it up in the first place will start to believe it.

Of course, in order for the campaign to truly work, you have to make everyone believe that their life is in danger–NOT just those addicted to the stuff.

Enter the side-stream smoke hypothesis

That sure lit a fire under the masses. Practically overnight, millions of nonsmokers suddenly developed an allergy to smoke. And think of The Children, helpless in the smokers’ environment and bound to contract asthma, tonsillitis, impaired intelligence, and God knows what else. And we can’t forget the biggest threat of all: lung cancer.

What a load of hypocritical nonsense.

Years ago, I predicted that lung cancer would not decrease with the advent of these oppressive antismoking diktats. In fact, I told you that the incidence could increase. I even wrote a book on the subject, showing science that proves that the movement had nothing to do with protecting the public, but was politically motivated down to its rotten core. It was the best non-seller I have ever written.

But studies are finally starting to trickle in proving that I’ve been right all along–like this one from the Journal of Clinical Oncology. According to the study, 20 percent of female lung cancer victims and 8 percent of male victims never smoked a day in their lives. Add that to the studies showing that nonsmoking-related lung cancer continues to rise, even as the prevalence of smoking declines, and you’re stuck with an equation that doesn’t add up. I mean, where is all this “second-hand smoke” coming from?

I’m sure you know at least one cantankerous, wrinkled, leathery-skinned 80-year-old who’s been chain-smoking since he was 9. He probably has a raspy cough–and not a hint of lung cancer in sight.

Hold that example next to all of the Dana Reeves out there–young, nonsmoking women dying of lung cancer in the prime of life–and you have to realize that there’s more to lung cancer than cigarettes. The quicker the government stops chasing smoke clouds, the sooner we’ll know the real culprit behind this deadly disease.

Now, don’t throw this down in frustration thinking that I’m saying it’s OK to smoke. I’m not. But is it the primary source of lung cancer? No, it isn’t. In light of the fact that there are a declining number of households where one spouse smokes and the other doesn’t, the side-stream smoke theory is left with no visible means of support–just like the government propaganda harlot it always was.