WorldNetDaily editor Joe Farah has been doing an exemplary job the
past week pointing out discrepancies in the mainstream media when it
comes to “reporting” the “facts” about incidents and issues that are not
politically correct. And by the way, just a side note here: Do
you realize that only a few hundred people in this country of 265
million are deciding for us what is and is not “politically
correct?” That in and of itself is absurd and obscene, but that’s
another story.

Anyway, in keeping with Mr. Farah’s theme of exposing the lie that
the mainstream press is “fair, even-handed and balanced” in its
reporting of the news, I turn your attention again to the issue of
tobacco and the lies surrounding the “demon weed.”

Because of the powerful indoctrination forces working both on the
domestic and global front, literally billions of people have been led to
believe that all forms of smoking will slowly kill you, that smokers
themselves are immoral and thoughtless boobs, and that anyone who wants
to sue the tobacco companies into oblivion ought to be able to, truth
about their products be damned.

As I have said many times in previous columns defending tobacco use
and a tobacco company’s right to produce this legal product, there have
been studies (note the use of a plural) for years demonstrating that
there is no coherent, traceable, provable or demonstrable link to
second-hand tobacco smoke and a wide range of health problems, including
cancer. Furthermore, at least one study found that second-hand ETS —
environmental tobacco smoke — might also have protective
benefits. Oh, this is just too good.

But reality brings me back to earth. Each and every time I have made
these pronouncements in the past, I was chastised as some unintelligent
loser who is either too stupid to read actual studies or a dupe being
bankrolled by “big tobacco.” Neither is true, but whatever — no matter
how many times I deny it there will still be lots of single-digit IQ
types who will continue to scream “conspiracy.”

In making these assertions again, though, I find it deliciously
ironic that one study — the largest of its kind — proving the
lack of lethality of second-hand smoke comes from none other than the
world’s “champion” of anti-smoking “rights”: The U.N.’s own World Health
Organization. I also find it not the least bit conspicuous that this
organization, which touts itself as a bastion of truth, honor, dignity
and defender of righteousness, hid the results of its own study
because it didn’t reveal pre-conceived notions about second-hand smoke.

Now to me, as a consumer of news and information, I would be more
offended by, and suspicious of, someone who sought to hide crucial
information contained in a multi-million dollar study that was hailed as
“the most comprehensive of its kind ever” — regardless of the results.
But instead those of us who continue to defend truth and defend legal
products and corporations in this country will likely be accused of
“making all this up to satisfy our own agenda” when in fact, it is the
opposition that is doing that. Smoking Nazis — like gun, SUV, perfume
and land Nazis — won’t get this bum rap because, after all, they are
incapable of “agendas” and besides, they just “care” about us. Right.

Truth is truth regardless of whom it exposes, what theories it
debunks, what pre-conceived notions it trashes, and what discomfort it
may cause. Truth is not, as a fascist would tell you, whatever you
perceive it to be. It is a narrowly defined and tangible thing,
and it is often less difficult to find than others would have you
believe. The world is not “mostly gray,” but black and white, right and
wrong, and good or bad in most cases.

But you gotta be willing to accept truth when you hear it. And as
far as the issue of second-hand tobacco smoke is concerned, this
“elusive truth” is now at hand. Hate it if you must, but embrace it
nonetheless because really, you have no choice. The alternative is a
fantasy world fraught with missteps, illusions and ultimately, crippling
disillusionment — just the things that transform raving liberals into
committed constitutionalists.

Denying facts just because they don’t fit your narrow image of the
world is wrong. Most adults admonish their children when they do that
because it is a poor way to learn how to accept the reality of a life
that is filled both with triumphs and failures.

Furthermore, a propaganda campaign heralding false or intentionally
misleading information just to demonize something a tiny minority of
self-anointed people have decided is “good” or “bad” for everybody else
borders on the criminal, and it is certainly no way to maintain a free
society. Informed debate is the only way to settle issues effectively
and in a manner that will stand up to the test of time.

The smoking Nazis have claimed that tobacco companies lied to people
about the dangers of cigarette smoking. I personally have not seen the
evidence supporting this charge; in fact, I’ve seen plenty of evidence
to the contrary. Tobacco companies have, for years, been forced by the
federal government to adorn their products with warning labels, as well
as include them in any advertising they — at one time — were still
allowed to do.

On the other hand, the smoking Nazis have repeatedly gotten away with
hiding revelations and factual evidence about the non-dangers of
smoking and smoking-related “health” questions, as this WHO-funded
research — now well over 18 months old — proves.

Just who is trying to fool whom?

It would be logical — but not very realistic — to assume that the
tobacco companies now have a case for a countersuit against U.N., the
WHO and anyone else who has purposely hid or falsified data about
second-hand smoke and tobacco in general. At the very least, it
would be sensible to assume that all lawsuits against the tobacco
corporations should be thrown out, considering many of the judgements
against them were made on the premise of this inconclusive — if not
outright faulty — evidence.

But that wouldn’t fit the anti-tobacco “agenda,” would it? And the
smoking Nazis accuse “big tobacco” of a conspiracy.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.