Monday, 22 September 2008


Dr. Michael Siegel has brought to our attention through his internet blog that the NSRA (Non-Smokers’ Rights Association) in Canada has categorized C.A.G.E. as a tobacco industry front group.

It has become common practice that instead of debating the message with hard facts and proof, many anti-tobacco interest groups throughout the world attempt to discredit those who present different points of view in whole or in part. They have declared that the ‘’debate is closed’’ and anyone who dares point out discrepancies, incoherencies and outright lies in their rhetoric, are accused of representing tobacco interests. The only purpose of such tactics is obviously to stifle any dissent and bury the message that many, including reputed scientists, disagree in part or in whole with the alleged ‘’facts’’ behind the anti-tobacco industry campaigns.

Without a trace of proof but speculative conclusions, they like to paint everyone with the same brush that they have strategically painted the tobacco industry, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, in an effort to do away with any opposition to their agenda.

Ever since the tobacco industry has in fact stopped opposing the anti-tobacco offensive in the hope to appease their opponents, anti-tobacco is running rampant with statements, studies and campaigns that have quickly escalated into exaggerations and the distortion of facts to the point that today they have reached
absurd proportions.

Obviously they didn’t expect that true grass-root organizations such as C.A.G.E. who have no stakes and no monetary interests in the issue, would challenge their dogmatic views. Fortunately, there are many citizens and groups who, just like C.A.G.E., still act in the name of principle and will continue to give a voice to the most discriminated in the name of justice, truth and integrity.

The NSRA will be put on notice to remove their libelous comments from their website and publicly apologize to C.A.G.E. and its officials, or face legal sanctions.

A special thanks to Dr. Siegel for having brought this to our attention.

Read Dr. Siegel’s article

No comments: