What a tragic waste of resources

Smoking bans are a moralist imposition, the ideas shared in paternalist arguments such as "smoking is a trigger for asthmatics" fails the test of choice, when any asthmatic could make a choice easily based on a warning sign on the door whether or not to enter a place with a sign describing the conditions. Nut allergies warnings seem to be working. Informed consent is based on information provided. Jews were not dragged into the ovens, they walked in based on the coercion of their captors. They were similarly the victims of medical experimentation due to coercion of not only themselves but coercion of the public in protecting the health of the German people. At the same time distributing lies and half truths to sell their arguments.

We learned many lessons and produced international Laws based in those atrocities.
Many do not wish to discuss the parallels here, yet your discomfort in the discussion is proof in itself of your personal denial of the fact; the smoking bans and fat pandemic nonsense all part and parcel of a huge health movement, precisely in ignorance of those lessons learned in the past, the reason the Jewish people declared “Never again” The reason the rest of the world moved away from Eugenics in protections of the gene pool by eliminating unwanted components of it.

The healthcare professionals today would look at the Aryan brotherhood with disgust yet how similar the ethical values are based would make them closer in political opinion than the health community would ever admit. If we imagined the other group afforded the resources of the health community how loudly they would protest of civil liberties infringements in what they would do to them. Yet they currently would seem to be amused in the impositions promoted against primarily, the largest portion of the lowest socioeconomic sector of our population those who have no power or voice, with which to defend themselves while punishing an addiction how sane is that? A denormalization of an industry or a dozen seems to always include a plan of punishment of the victims as opposed to dealing with the products in constructive plans to make the products safer or eliminating them, in real protections of others, not in the hate and coercive activities currently employed and imposed on others.

Moralists have a tendency to be the drama queens who believe they have a right to make decisions for others instead of encouraging others to do well, in leading by example.

The examples they are taught to offer are those extreme circumstances carefully selected from world events, to hold high in demanding political interventions. No matter how remote and how far from the norm that example might be. Who is the biggest victim gets the biggest piece of the public trough. In reality few moralists have any respect for moral values at all, they simply use the moral arguments to demand power, based in the values of others who seek to live by those moral values of respect for each other. Moralists simply use morality as a club to beat free will into a subservient slave to promote a single will. If the argument is weak, simply inject the effects on children to avoid realistic debate, to hide behind them as other terrorists do in using civilians as shields.

The self descriptions of stakeholders; right headed or politically correct are the standards set, although few in the moralist crowd understand who is creating the rules or do they care enough to look. They would all adamantly acclaim they are the leaders of what is right and all others are subversive or unworthy of opinion.

Moralist think themselves above the respect of debate with the unenlightened, when such fine plans have already been decided. Attacking the character of others is much more comfortable than actually engaging in productive debate. Including others in decisions already paid for and underway would only confuse the issues. Issues decided primarily not even in discussions among themselves but described in orchestrated cheering crowd convention rallies and given them from a podium speech.

The language the arguments and the activities requiring participation all handed them by the few corporate moralists who understand what healthcare professionals need to do in order to serve others. It seems comical when participating in one of these pep rallies how much can be stuffed down thousands of peoples throats, without complaint more importantly without discussion or decision. They are inspired yet soul searching would quickly reveal, they, in the majority do not know why. Or more important how.

The grass is always greener mentalities convinces moralists the best seats are taken by smokers or the best clubs do not cater to them when in fact a club success is determined by the clients much more decisively than a management who should be free to make their choices in hospitality, it is a business of serving clients. Public spaces laws allow politicians to make choices in the management of privately owned bars they have never seen or do they have any capacity to understand client needs other than creative research handed them by the moralists who by forcing their bottoms into the seats they desire soon realize the atmosphere with reduced inclusions is not as desirable as it once appeared to be.

There is no choice for a smoker when even the right to sit under an outdoor umbrella is taken. A self employed person in Ontario with no other employees can be charged for smoking in their owned vehicle. Pulled over on a highway emitting megatons of toxins far in excess of all the toxins produced in cigarette smoke in history in one day. A roof overhang 50 feet over your head eliminates a patio from allowing smoking the smoke hazard with 5000 indescribable ingredients, most not described because the volumes are below the levels of detection, smoke diluted in huge volumes of air, with tens of thousands of chemical pollutants in volumes detected easily and known to be above safe levels. Regardless of the reality with smokers banned, the patio may sit empty because the non smokers can not stand the smell of traffic a sidewalk away from their meal.

Are we dong society a benefit in deciding free will, or have we started down a path we will learn to regret as moralists move to the top in deciding what is right for all of us in our micromanaged lives.

Next time you have the opportunity to speak to someone from a nation you would believe to be oppressed, ask them how they like the freedom we are all so proud of. In most cases you will hear it is a beautiful place but it is puzzling anyone could live under such oppressive government control with no rebellion of the people. Personally I can remember the sixties the freedom and standard of living well above what we are told we “enjoy” today. In comparison I feel sorry for the kids today who have all the choices made for them it seems, with no respect for their ability to think for themselves. In reality a teen has much advantage in comparison to some of the damaged minds endemic in older years who believe they are superior, despite the damage life inflicts on us all. Damaged primarily in immunities grown over decades witnessing the horrific things people do to each other.

Moralists, sold on their own superiority; are always looking over their shoulders because there will always be someone younger and brighter who will eventually take over the reins, perhaps someone more extreme and more willing to do what others would not dare. The competition of the extremists is necessary in holding onto the reins allowing even those who know better, to participate in those activities, in fear of those who will follow.

If that younger person is taught in moralist ways how extreme will they be? if, as moralists tend to forget, no respect is taught that child in the basics of free will, respect for others rights to make their own choices, and the tragedies which always follow, when those principles are not respected