Since the turn of the millennium, we have a hypocritical, highly duplicitous state consisting largely of malicious do-gooders, who are only after the money of the poor, instead of toasting to the well-being of the citizens and not begrudging them their one of the last existing joys of life.
But the state prefers antisocial exercise of power aided by its monopoly on violence and, together with its 25 percent of servants on its payroll (one out of four citizen now works for the state, all paid by us) it can exert its morbid suppression and control addiction with relish, in excess and with impunity in the typical manner of the still-existent, unbearable churchdom and do-gooderism, which is convinced that help must also be given to those who say NO to it categorically, clearly and distinctly.
This is coercion and rape, such as the behavior of other power abusers in companies and organizations currently (2018) denounced (#metoo). The state does not accept a NO and is steadily suppressing the remaining minorities, even though it never has been mandated by the people to interfere with their lifestyle and privacy, let alone re-educate and blackmail them using the threat of punishment. This is an evidently undemocratic insolence, tending towards fascism, and a breach of constitutional provisions, such as the proportionality required in legislation or the dilution of the property rights guaranteed therein. From a broader point of view the state lacks far-sightedness for such abdicate actions, but especially for legitimacy, and reveals its role as a vassal for large corporations, instead of recognizing its citizens.
Today I am 64 years of age, one year prior to receiving my statutory retirement, and I get up every morning without any cough or other respiratory symptoms. My cholesterol levels are on average for my age group and my blood pressure, surprisingly, tends to be a bit on the low side. I would feel great, if it were not for the governmental craving for suppression.
How about never smokers who are supposedly dying from second-hand smoke if someone like me, who consumed everything that was forbidden in terms of drugs and substances, will still reach retirement age in one year? Oh, yes, at the age of 14 to 25 years I smoked hashish and marijuana in excessively – according to medical authorities supposedly much more harmful for the lungs. It is deemed more harmful because the substance is inhaled right into the deepest areas of the lungs. To make matters worse for health apostles, my experimental phase from the age of 16 would include LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, peyote, magic mushrooms, amphetamine, benzodiazepine, cocaine and all derivatives of papaver somniferum as well as excessive drinking (100-200 g/d). The only thing I never did was injecting drugs.
According to the WHO, should I not have died a long time ago? Am I no longer entitled to live according to the WHO? Does the WHO want to kill me with their horror stories, hoping that I still believe in fairy-tales? My life is and has been full of interesting surprises and encounters; I still enjoy it to the fullest. Any state that has signed the WHO treaty [the FCTC], in the US interests, is a stupid state that voluntarily restricts its freedom and that of its citizens, a freedom for which wars were waged in the past?
Wars are a lot riskier in terms of premature mortality, than smoking. Nobody can commit suicide by passive smoking as opposed to breathing the fumes of a car with the engine running in a closed garage. Cigarettes are even imposed on soldiers so they are not being driven crazy in combat when defending our freedom, whereupon politicians cannot wait to cheerfully dismantle it under pressure – under pressure from some fanatical-religious associations and in order to obtain their votes from those to whom ascetic life gives nothing but frustration and envy. Politics and its actors on the stage of the vanity fairs of this world have degenerated into a cheap soap opera, where only the ego flattering ratings and mentions in the print media seem to be of value.
How stupid do politicians have to become in order to qualify as such? I think I must be one of the enormously overused, much quoted and actually existing exceptions, one of the many forgotten living perceptions deported into anonymity, as well as one of the numerous medical miracles and countless contrary proofs that passive smoking, which I practice in addition to active smoking, is not harmful. The negligible amounts of harmful substances in passive smoke are simply ridiculous in relation to the usual thresholds of all other sources of toxic air pollution alone because of the lack of plausibility in relation to far more toxic air particles.
Why is it that passive smoke as the only source of air pollution is not assigned a safety threshold, as is the case with much more harmful substances? Answer: The loudly propagandised harmfulness is so minimal that it can be considered non-existent. A safety threshold would only emphasize this ridiculousness. Behind this fairy-tale lies above all the pharmaceutical mafia, but also a lot of US-based fanaticism, religious delusion, Puritanism and obsession with power.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog.