ANTI-TOBACCO GESTAPO: PAST AND PRESENT

Modern Campaign Echoes Rhetoric Of Nazi Health-fascists

In the 1930s, the great British historian Arnold Toynbee once compared
Gandhi to Hitler. Nowadays, that sort of comparison would be regarded as,
if not foolish, then certainly, flippant. On the other hand -- and this was
Toynbee's point -- were not both men vegetarian, teetotal, anti-smokers who
cared deeply about animal welfare? It's true one was a megalomaniac
mass-murderer, and the other a committed pacifist who refused to kill even
a bothersome fly, but Hitler and Gandhi shared a dedication to a clean body
and a clean mind.

Such weird similarities can be found throughout history, as a marvellous
new book by Robert Proctor entitled The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton
University Press) shows. If you thought the current anti-smoking paranoia
was a recent phenomenon, think again: The Nazis beat our "health-fascists"
to the punch -- though even Hitler lacked the avarice of today's tobacco
lawyers. Despite it being inaccurate to equate a reasonable regard for
one's health with a grander Nazi desire to cleanse the volk of toxins,
cancers and parasites such as Jews, Slavs and the disabled, today's more
hysterical anti-smoking campaigners unwittingly replicate practices and
rhetoric pioneered by the brilliant propagandists and authoritarians of the
Third Reich.

In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a "national
socialist duty" (Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit,
though this didn't stop them lighting up in the Berlin bunker once they
heard the Fuhrer had committed suicide). Armed with such senior sanction --
loyally, Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler banned SS men from smoking, though
not shooting, on duty, and Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobbels was obliged
to hide his ciggie whenever he was filmed -- anti-tobacco activists
succeeded in banning smoking from government offices, civic transport,
university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars,
hospital grounds and workplaces. Tobacco taxes were raised, unsupervised
cigarette vending machines were banned, and there were calls for a ban on
smoking while driving.

Thanks to the Ministry of Science and Education, and the Reich Health
Office, posters were produced depicting smoking as the typically despicable
habit of Jews, jazz musicians, Gypsies, Indians, homosexuals, blacks,
communists, capitalists, cripples, intellectuals and harlots. Zealous
lobbyists descended into the schools, terrifying children with tales of
impotence and racial impurity.

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of
Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war
criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers
and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide
when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It
comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking"
(Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz
Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus
("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the
German AntiTobacco League.

If some of these measures appear familiar today, then consider the rules
laid down in 1941 regarding tobacco advertising. "Images that create the
impression that smoking is a sign of masculinity are barred, as are images
depicting men engaged in activities attractive to youthful males (athletes
or pilots, for example)," and "may not be directed at sportsmen or
automobile drivers," while "advocates of tobacco abstinence or temperance
must not be mocked." Advertisements were banned from films, billboards,
posters and "the text sections of journals and newspapers." Nevertheless,
even the Nazis couldn't equal the recent ban on smoking on death row,
meaning prisoners about to undergo massive electric shocks are forbidden
from indulging in "one last drag" -- talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

This great crusade, propagated through a remarkable network of lectures,
re-education programs and congresses, was backed up by the medical and
health establishment for the sake of "science." Or at least a certain type
of junk science, one in which objective research and the scientific method
was subordinated to, and bastardized for the sake of, a greater political
program. Thus, it was commonly touted by scientists and racial hygienists
that smoking caused "spontaneous abortions": a clearly demonstrable
fallacy, but one requiring official promotion in order to ensure a high
birth rate for Aryan women.

It couldn't happen in Canada? Then consider how it is, as a new Fraser
Institute book (Passive Smoke, by Gio Gori and John Luik) points out,
anti-tobacco activists managed to secure bans on indoor smoking based on a
1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report stating that
"passive smoking" caused thousands of deaths annually. What nobody tells
you is that last year a U.S. Federal Court declared the EPA report "null
and void, finding that the agency acted illegally and corrupted science to
engage in a campaign of public disinformation." Nevertheless, much of
British Columbia is -- ghastly phrase -- "smoke-free," and so soon may be
Toronto when lighting up becomes verboten in bars and restaurants.
(Montreal is a beacon of sanity in this regard.)

Even so, smoking is rightly not permitted in many areas, and yes, it is bad
for you, but does the end really justify what appear to be rather extreme
and authoritarian means?