The current anti-smoking campaign
is not about public health or drug abuse...

It is about CONTROL... They want it!

Deception #2: DRUG ABUSE.

Illegal drug use increased substatially under the leadership of Bill Clinton - without considering tobacco as a drug. The increase considered only highly addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin, or Clinton's favorite, marijuana.

Clinton's Failed Drug Policies
In the wake of his failed policies concerning addictive drugs like cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, President Clinton again pulled a SLICK maneuver and successfully "redefined" tobacco as an addictive drug in a deceptive ploy to make it look like he was doing something about drugs.

But, drug use was not reduced -- only new federal regulations were imposed on legal businesses through an expanded Food and Drug Administration.

When President Clinton was faced with a failed drug policy in 1995, he countered by proposing giving the Food and Drug Administration the power to control and regulate tobacco as a narcotic.

Medical Device Approval Letter, which monitors FDA review of medical devices, lists a series of regulatory moves the FDA can make including:

• Requiring cigarettes be "prescription drugs or devices'' that can only be dispensed by doctors. FDA also could require tobacco be dispensed by pharmacists along with smoking-cessation drugs, such as patches. Tobacco firms also may need to pay "user fees" to FDA.
• Declare any "new'' tobacco products, including filters, investigational drugs or devices, and hence subject to FDA-approved clinical testing.

The true agenda behind the enlargement of the FDA is apparent when you look at where the money is going. The 1999 Budget Proposal for FDA suggested raising the FDA budget to include $35 million for compliance outreach, $75 million in enforcement and evaluation, and $24 million in product regulation. Notice that their stated goal is to regulate nicotine, yet product regulation receives the smallest portion of the money. The greater amounts are for "enforcement and evaluation" and "compliance." It is simply funding a stealth "jack-booted" police force with the full power of the Federal Government behind them.

Washington has chosen the tobacco industry to be their scapegoats because they can't explain the increase of illegal drug use in America. Watch for it: Bill Clinton will use statistics from his new tobacco crack-down to "spin" statistics to make him look like he has done something about"addictive drugs".

See ... I told you so:

• In December, 1997, President Clinton punctuated the 23rd annual Monitoring the Future survey of drug use among teenage students that showed a decline by eighth-grade students of marijuana use and tobacco smoking. Clinton said, "This change in attitudes represents a glimmer of hope in our efforts to protect our children from drugs." However, Clinton made it clear that the fight is far from over, calling drugs "the most dangerous enemy of childhood."
• The Clinton Administration budgeted $195 million for an advertising campaign on television and radio and in print in 1998 to discourage adolescents from using illegal drugs. "Our goal," Clinton said, "is to make sure that every time a child turns on the TV, listens to the radio or surfs the Internet, he or she will get the powerful message that drugs can destroy your life." Since he included surfing the Net, I'll bet he hopes those kids won't find this web page. I'll be awaiting this campaign to monitor its connection of cigarette smoking to drug use.
• In the wake of the school killings in Oregon, reporters have joined the chorus. "Too many young people face academic failure, violence, suicide, pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, alcohol, tobacco and other drug abuse."
• The U.S. Congress attached to the National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act huge increases in the budgets of the FBI and Drug Enforcement Agency.
• National Drug Policy Director Barry R. McCaffrey said, "We know that the heart and soul of the nation's counterdrug strategy is to keep our young people from using illegal drugs -- particularly marijuana -- as well as drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. The results of this survey are a sign that we are moving in the right direction."

Anti-Smoking DoubleSpeak

Bill Clinton proved he was a master of manipulating public opinion for his collectivist agenda. Focus group studies discovered some of the "trigger" words that people responded to. High on the list was "CHILDREN," and "KIDS." Government and health officials quickly began incorporating these trigger words into their anti-tobacco messages. Today, you don't hear a anti-tobacco message without children or kids being mentioned and smoking has been "spun" into "pediatric disease" of epic proportions. What politician would stand on the side of this redefined tobacco industry from addicting the next generation of US kids? Opposition to Congress raising taxes on tobacco products make them appear to side with the tobacco industry over the goal of reducing teen smoking.

Anti-smoking socialists have gotten pretty proficeint in mindless doublespeak. On the surface, what they say may sound good, but if you consider what they say with an ounce of intelligence you will see their words are meaningless and only designed to get you "emotionally" keyed.

Consider the regurgitated EPA words of chemical dependency counselor, Debora J. Orrick, from the drkoop web site, "Pending legislation (H.R. 3434, S.1680, S. 262) would protect nonsmokers, including children, from second hand smoke in most public places. These bills would not make the sale of tobacco illegal, bring government regulations into the home nor take away a smoker's right to choose to smoke. They would help improve the quality of our environment and the health of our children and loved-ones."

Apparently Ms Orrick considers you complete idiots. Notice the doublespeak, "...protect nonsmokers, including children, from second hand smoke in most public places," and "These bills would not make the sale of tobacco illegal, bring government regulations into the home nor take away a smoker's right to choose to smoke." Yeah, right! How do you suppose they are going to protect nonsmokers and at the same time not take away a smoker's right to choose to smoke?

They certainly have a long history of balancing those two haven't they? The fact is, in the name of "protecting nonsmokers," smokers are already systematically discriminated against for exercising their right to choose to smoke and have been ostracized from most public areas.

And government entities, working with their crony partners in industry, have intruded into our homes with punitive fees and higher insurance rates, and in some cases CPS agents have removed children from their homes because their parents smoke.