Published in the Western Standard, June 28, 2004, p. 32. (Also available in a pdf scan.)

Antismoking Types Are Waging a Holy War
by
Pierre Lemieux

 

The electoral campaign, with its empty slogans and generally statist tone, provides a good opportunity to reflect on propaganda. Why is state propaganda often not recognized as such? And what’s special about state-financed propaganda? The paradigmatic case is the World Health Organization, whose bureaucrats are trying to take the global leadership in the antismoking jihad. They have enlisted none other than God. “Religion,” states the Organization, in typical Newspeak, “represents a new frontier for public health in terms of partnership opportunities.” At a meeting on “tobacco and religion,” held in 1999 at WHO’s Geneva headquarters, representatives of organized religions explained why God does not like tobacco (see http://www.who.int/tobacco/national_capacity/religion/en/). Some pronouncements belonged to a kind of super Mumbo Jumbo verbiage that God Himself must be at loss to understand. Witness the Greek Orthodox representative, talking about the antismoking campaign: “Such a campaign can hopefully be effective only if it considers the expansion and success of tobacco in relation to the triumph of that over-powerful and self-justifying deliberation, which divides countries into nonsmoking and smoking because of fires built by bombs implacably devastating life, dismembering smoking fellow human beings.” Some religions put tobacco, alcohol and prostitution in the same bag of sins. Holy war! Yet, many religions appeared relatively tolerant and, at any rate, opposed to prohibition. The worst indictment the Catholic representative was able to find is that Pope John Paul II called all Christians to abstain from tobacco for one day, and donate the money saved to efforts against the HIV-AIDS epidemic. Just one day! Protestant pastor Jean-Claude Basset argued the tobacco control campaign cannot ignore the fact that “smoke…is intrinsically linked to mankind’s religious history.” Referring to adult smokers, he concluded, “It is possible to propose to them the ideals of good health but not to impose them, if they prefer other values, such as relaxation and the sense of well-being that tobacco induces.” The Organization relapsed in May 2002 with an international workshop on Buddhism and tobacco control, organized with the Cambodian Ministry of Cults and Religion. “The main objective,” states the Organization, “was to meet and discuss among local and international Buddhist monks and government representatives about how Buddhist teachings relate to tobacco and tobacco use, and the role that Buddhist monks can have in reducing tobacco use.” This is serious stuff. “After two days of active discussion,” continues the Organization, “the workshop participants agree and declare that…tobacco should be classified under the fifth precept, ‘Suramerayamajjahpamatthana,’ as a harmful and addictive substance.” Obviously, someone got to the Buddhist monks much more effectively than the participants of the previous meeting (I wonder if the Ministry of Cults and Religion helped). Cigarette advertising, they further agreed, “is offensive and violates the fourth precept of Buddhism, ‘Musavadaveramoni,’ about misleading communication. All tobacco marketing should be banned.” Now that’s a religion that is not content with pious generalities and puts its shoulder to the wheel. What is perceived as serious opinion, as opposed to simplistic propaganda, depends on the reigning orthodoxy. Under today’s soft fascism, suggesting that a restaurant owner (repeat: a restaurant owner) should be legally allowed to post a big sign warning, “For smokers and second-hand-smoke lovers only,” looks totally out of this world, while WHO’s pidgin religion appears acceptable. WHO is financed by coerced taxpayers, mainly from developed countries. In fiscal year 2002–03, the Canadian government contributed $58 million. It is a feature of our time that a large part of the money spent on anti-liberty propaganda is coercively taken from its very victims. The electoral campaign, largely financed with public funds, is another example. I am sure that God, if He exists, must be laughing His ass off at WHO’s religion--and wishing us good luck against the tyrant.