Replies

"I am afraid you are correct, and that practice is freedom and life itself."

You're free to smoke but being enslaved to an addictive bunch of weeds is not my definition of freedom. Nor is the use of a poison a part of my definition of life itself.

There is freedom in personal responsibility and the strength to manage one's life free of addiction. The first few are a choice but after that there is addictive compulsion.

But, as I said, the choice is yours.

You're free to smoke but being enslaved to an addictive bunch of weeds is not my definition of freedom.

What addiction?

I've smoked off and on for 45 years.

I stop and start. It's not even a conscious decision, I just periodically run out of supplies and it just doesn't occur to me to restock. Sometimes that goes on for years, one time for 7 years.

That's not an addiction.

But, as I said, the choice is yours.

That certainly was the case before you behavioral scientist thugs became emboldened through a highly-successful propaganda campaign.

"Patterns of convergence similar to those occurring in 1930s Germany are also evident in the role of supra-governmental groups such as the World health Organisation, which force quite narrow Western concepts of health into the agendas of developing countries - hence seat-belt wearing campaigns in Mozambique where the main form of transport is the water buffalo and cart. And Deborah Lupton again notes that under the prevailing discourse of 'healthism', the pursuit of health has become an end in itself rather than the means to an end. For the WHO, health has become reified to the extent that it is defined by them as 'a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being' - a phrase which, given the points I have just raised might be seen as having sinister overtones. As David Seedhouse, Director of the National Centre for Health and Social Ethics in New Zealand has noted:

" ... in pluralistic societies any claim to know objectively the constituents of a worthwhile life must at the very least be treated with caution."

Seedhouse argues that the whole notion of 'well-being' should be dropped from the WHO mandate. Not only is the concept too vague to be used as a measure of the effectiveness of health promotion, it smacks very strongly of the 'we know what is best for you' philosophy. Robert Downie and his colleagues, in one of the 'bibles' of health promotion used by WHO activists, show that they are clearly exponents of this paternalistic role. They note that 'well-being' can be viewed in one sense as a subjective judgement made by individuals about their own physical and mental states. Ordinary mortals, however, as opposed to health promoters, may have 'illusions' about their own well-being - they are not 'feeling great' at all. They say:

"Subjective well-being ... may be spurious and may arise from influences which are detrimental to an individual's functioning or flourishing and/or to society."

In Praise of Bad Habits