Activism is one of the means by which individuals in a democratic system attempt to wrestle state power for their own ends. As such, it is a method of exploitation used by the ideologically-motivated, supported by a state-controlled media and a population that is not taught to think critically.

Persuasion in general, of course, is not undesirable: indeed, it is a non-coercive way to rally others to our cause. But activism is not a species of persuasion. It does not treat other people as individuals in their own right and seek to argue the merits of a position. It treats people as fearful masses manipulated for political ends. It has about as much to do with dialogue as Intelligent Design has to do with science.

The propaganda machine against smoking is a great example of activism. Recently a popular movie portrayed the tobacco industry as an evil, callous propaganda machine. It may actually surprise you to learn that there is very little actual scientific evidence that second-hand smoke (ETS) causes a higher risk of cancer. The two studies used in the war against smokers are the 1992 EPA meta-study and the 1998 WHO study. Here are the links to these studies:

EPA 1992 – A meta-study (which is the least reliable kind of study) found that the Relative Risk of ETS for lung cancer mortality is 1.19 (119%), which is negligeable (see section 6.3.3). Of the studies they used, 6 found a positive correlation, 6 found a negative correlation, and 12 found no correlation.

WHO 1998 – To quote the abstract:

Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

They even found a 0.78 Relative Risk for children- meaning that children were LESS likely to get cancer when exposed to ETS! But 0.78 is not significant enough to draw such a conclusion, even for a rigorous controlled trial- and neither is any opposite result obtained by these studies. They are all of the same order of magnitude.

So what do the activists do? They lie through their teeth. “Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You”, blares a WHO press release, complaining of the “misrepresentation” done by some people who dared to point out that the results were not significant.

Anti-smoking ads portray the issue as one of big corporations vs “the working man” and the children (of course), literally demonizes tobacco, portray tobacco companies as cheerful exploiters of people’s supposedly bottomless capacity to be brainwashed by ads, and pretend that people are not aware of the dangers of smoking. All to support “clean air”- while millions of cars spray their exhaust all around us.

The tactic of associating a cause with the “common man” struggling against big corporations is a common theme in statist propaganda. We know it is, as usual, a complete lie, since people choose to smoke and ETS is not shown to increase risk of cancer. Every time this kind of propaganda is used as an obvious lie, you can be sure that you’re really looking at either a struggle between corporate groups, or a struggle between big government and big corporations (and of course we are the only invariable losers).

In this case, while some businesses such as bars are wiped out by anti-smoking laws, bars are not in competition with tobacco companies, so we must observe that the main beneficiary of such laws is the state. Local states stand to gain legitimacy from these laws, as well as a justification to use more stolen money for ad campaigns and law enforcement. They can also use anti-smoking regulations to control sports events and other public venues, which are very important at the local level.

The “corporations hate you and plot against you” model of politics, which we also saw in the “Net Neutrality” item, is very similar to a conspiracy theory. There is this idea that a group of people consciously, and for no obvious reason, wishes harm to an entire population, and takes actions which are interpreted as intending harm (such as advertising its products). Of course, this model is never applied to the state, except by actual conspiracy theorists. Politicians are rarely seen as worse than incompetent or stupid. But conspiracy theories about corporations are commonplace.

A related kind of propaganda is the belief that there’s no good reason for smokers to smoke. This is obviously nonsense. No one does anything for no reason. At worst one may be compelled to do something, but this is not the case here. Unlike the state, tobacco companies do not force people at gunpoint to fulfill their values. That alone makes them considerably more justified. They have a product and people want their product.

Why do people smoke? Why do people eat fast food? Why do people bungee jump? To take an extreme example, why do people kill themselves? Because people are not strictly lifespan-maximizing machines. We all have wildly different values, and virtually all of us have some values which go counter to our own health or lifespan. I would wager that 99% of people would choose to live a life of 50 years filled with excitement and accomplishments rather than a healthy life of 100 years filled with constant, total boredom and frustration.

People don’t do things without reason, or with the intent to do harm. Even soldiers- trained murderers for the state, in effect- firmly believe in what they are doing. At best we can accuse someone of being delusional. But to argue against the justification to use unhealthy products is to argue against simple moral facts- it is pointless and psychologically deranged.

The main strategy of an activist is to use scare tactics to make you fearful. Fear is one of the most powerful motivators, so powerful that it got its own propaganda abbreviation: FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). The activist (or the scientist seeking to ride on the coat-tails of activists) accomplishes this by publishing half-done studies, by lying about finished studies or simply ignoring them, or by making up models based on false assumptions. Activists do this regardless of supposed love for science, regardless of their creed or faction on the political see-saw- from the “left” (gun control propaganda, global warming propaganda, anti-smoking propaganda), the “right” (anti-homosexuality propaganda, positions based on religious doctrines) and both sides of the see-saw at the same time (seat belt propaganda, “public good” theory). Freedom without science is lame, science without freedom is blind.

Anti-smoking propaganda is anti-choice, anti-fulfillment of values. It is a demand for us to submit our choices to the desires of a few, ultimately so that the state can keep expanding its area of control. I find it quite understandable that some people dislike the odour of smoke- I hate it. But unlike the statist, I do not expect other people to bow to my every desire. I expect other people to be free to choose for themselves, I expect restaurants and bars to be free to choose for themselves, and thus I choose accordingly. That is called “living in a civilized society”. But living in a civilized society means that state coercion is an unnecessary evil- something which activists cannot acknowledge at any cost, for they depend on the legitimacy of the state.

The net result of this propaganda is that people have been thoroughly bamboozled into believing that ETS is a proven cancer risk, when in fact all the science we have proves that it is not a significant risk. What are we to do when faced with such a wall of propaganda? In itself, anti-smoking seems like a side issue that is fraught with insurmountable perils. I think we should not concern ourselves with such issues when we can use morality to defeat our opponents’ premises. Let them have their anti-smoking laws- they will be useless when the walls fall.

If you have a propaganda item you’d like me to look at, just post it in the comments. I welcome all suggestions.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Links against anti-smoking propaganda
• Billionaire Banzhaf Bashes company over Retraction Request