On Being Ethnically Cleansed in California -- A Smoker's Lament

It isn't exactly ethnic cleansing, it is merely ridding California by the year 2030 of a universally despised group of U.S. citizens who have no protections and no rights. I'm talking about smokers, many of whom are members of protected groups like the elderly, the disabled, veterans, etc., but by virtue of being smokers have lost the protection granted to other members of those groups who do not smoke.

San Diego is well on it's way to being Juden-frei, oops, I mean smoke-free. It is forbidden to smoke indoors, and it is forbidden to smoke outdoors in public parks, on beaches, or near bus stops. Soon San Diego will enact laws against smoking outdoors anywhere in the city. There is no longer any rental housing in San Diego for smokers. Alcoholics and drug addicts are welcome, as long as they don't smoke. So, unable to smoke indoors or outdoors, more than 50% of San Diego's homeless will be driven out of the city, most of them probably landing in Los Angeles which is not yet ethnically cleansing smokers and is a bit less harsh in criminalizing homelessness.

The real estate developers who control San Diego are ecstatic, particularly those in the low-income housing industry. For decades they have been making billions of dollars for themselves and their investors by decreasing low income housing and increasing homelessness, using money intended to provide low income housing. As it happens, they provide very little new low income housing and when they claim they are providing low income housing, what they are really doing is just displacing low income tenants and renting their units to new tenants. They also do "renovations" to increase property values, driving more and more low income people out of their rentals and into the streets.

The HUD project-based senior building where I've lived for the past 15 years is a good example of how smokers are being cleansed from San Diego. When an affiliate of the Housing Commission bought the building about two years ago, I asked them repeatedly if I'd still be allowed to smoke in my apartment, and they reassured me that I would. It turns out that wasn't the only thing they lied about. Their own shill, the guy they brought in to convince tenants to support the change of ownership, apparently left them because they had lied to him too. Soon after buying the building, they converted it to a non-smoking facility, which is their right under an extremely unconstitutional California law, without bothering to notify the tenants. They just put signs on the doors that it was now a non-smoking facility (note that it is no longer a senior residence, but a penal facility) and started making new residents sign a no-smoking lease. Existing elderly smokers were grandfathered in for over a year, but then they changed us all, again without bothering to notify us, from the annual leases we all had, which are much more suitable to permanent residents in senior buildings, to month-to-month or transient leases so it would be easier to evict us.

They gave us 30-day advance notice that our new lease goes into effect on May 1st. We will no longer be allowed to smoke in our apartments. At the same time they are removing all but one of the designated outdoor smoking areas, and they will remove the last one remaining any time they feel like it. Of course the sidewalks are posted against loitering, so if we go outside the property to smoke, they'll have the guards warn us that we're loitering and write us up for loitering, so that if it happens again they can call the cops and prove we're not first-time offenders. Meanwhile they're pushing for the city to go completely smoke-free so that we won't just be able to cross the street to smoke. There will be nowhere to smoke in San Diego, except for the wealthy who own stand-alone houses, as is already the case in Coronado and El Cajon. This has been happening gradually, so we're boiling frogs, in most cases not even aware that we're being ethnically cleansed.

I'm 77. I've been smoking for 61 years. I do not wish to stop smoking. Smokers have lower rates of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, and tend to live longer and have fewer cancers. Most lung ailments that were once attributed to smoking have long since been proven to have other causes. In London, England, when their anti-smoking campaign drove smoking rates down to the lowest in their history, a decline from 25% in 2000 to below 14% in 2016, their childhood cancer rates increased by 40%. Countries with the highest smoking rates are also countries with the best longevity. In the US. where smoking rates are declining, longevity is decreasing. The "scientific" tests "proving" that smoking and second-hand smoke cause harm are far removed from reality. In the real world, the more people in a nation smoke, the healthier that nation is and the longer their people live.

In an urban apartment like mine, smoke is the smallest and least toxic component of air pollution. The urban air we breathe both outdoors, and because this isn't a space capsule, also indoors, has no safe level of exposure. But they haven't banned driving. The toxic flooring, laminate cabinets, adhesives and other materials used in the renovations, which they did with us still in the building, contain thousand of pounds more of substances known to the State of California to cause cancer, in millions or even trillions the concentrations that can only be found in commercial tobacco with an atomic spectroscope. I smoke organic tobacco leaves, so my tobacco doesn't even have those trace amounts.

Under the California Constitution, no individuals or groups can be granted rights or privileges not granted to all individuals and groups on the same terms. But drivers are allowed to pollute the air with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons known to have no safe level of exposure, and landlords can force their tenants to inhale hundreds of known carcinogens, while smokers are not allowed to pollute, even if the cigarettes have no carcinogens at all. What is banned is not a substance, but a verb, smoking. The people being ethnically cleansed are not polluters, but smokers. And the courts have ruled that smokers are not a protected group and have no rights.

I tried suing, but the judge I got, who has a past history of supporting the rights of corporations to kill people with pollution, now says that he thinks everyone should stop smoking. It's fine with him if corporations pollute, but not if individuals do.

In issuing the new lease with the new smoking policy to stop grandfathering in elderly smokers, management claimed not only that they are concerned about health, but also about cost and about fire. They showed no concern with health when they exposed us all to asbestos during the renovations. They broke up the popcorn ceilings from 1979, back when there was not yet any asbestos-free "popcorn" ceiling spray on the market, claiming that their inspector said there was no asbestos. They had to break up the ceilings to expand the bedroom space of what were already the largest low-income apartments available anywhere in the country, so that they could double their HUD subsidies and put the building at risk the next time Congress cuts HUD funding, which it always does. As for costs, they have never spent a cent more cleaning an apartment after a smoker vacates than when a non-smoker vacates--with 75,000 people on the waiting list, they don't have to. They're paying less for fire insurance now than they were before they converted to non-smoking, because they own so many properties they can get whatever insurance rates they want or threaten to take all their business elsewhere. And smoking doesn't cause as many fires as candles, cooking, or the portable space heaters they recommended we buy when they failed to provide heat least winter. Because the organic tobacco leaves I shred and roll don't have any additives, my cigarettes don't continue to burn if I put them down, they just go out. But there are smog tests for cars, and no tests to distinguish between cigarettes. In fact, smoking is banned even if the substance being smoked is a vapor that doesn't contain any tobacco at all, just water and an organic essential oil for flavor.

Stress weakens the immune system. Smoking helps relieve stress. But the ethnic cleansers of the United States don't want people to live longer. They are causing the longevity rate to decline and our lifespans to shorten deliberately. That way they can pay out fewer pensions and social security and keep the money for wars and for their own offshore bank accounts. As smoking rates decline in the U.S., prescription opiate addiction rises, because people are left with no other legal substitute for smoking.

When countries end homelessness, the United States invades and attacks them and seeks regime change. Ending homelessness is socialism and doesn't allow feudal landlords to profit from human misery.

I have three weeks left in which I can sit in my apartment with a book, a cup of coffee, and a cigarette. After that, no matter how long I live, I'll never have another relaxing moment of comfort in my life. Sure this is a trivial, first world problem when people are being deported, bombed, and killed off with toxic chemicals on their land, in their water, and in the air we breathe. But when you're the one being ethnically cleansed, it doesn't seem trivial at all.

And yet another conspiracy theory. . .

We must not forget another prime suspect in the conspiracy that explains how cigarettes became known as "cancer sticks," Dr. Alton Oschner. Celebrated as the world's premier cancer specialist at that time, Dr. Oschner obviously knew that bacteriologist, Bernice Eddy, had warned the National Institute of Health, (which promptly ignored her), that the newly developed polio vaccine that was about to be administered to a trusting and willing populace, was contaminated with cancer-causing simian virus, SV40 (among other monkey viruses), and would likely lead to a cancer epidemic in the millions of baby boomers who would subsequently stand in long lines waiting to be inoculated.

Fortuitously, that's when Dr. Oschner published his initially panned book, "Smoking and Cancer:  A Doctor's Report,"  that launched a campaign against cigarette smoking as the primary cause of lung cancer. Being the leading cancer specialist in the world at the time, his word was considered gospel truth, even though this was the same psychopath who had essentially sacrificed his own grandson and gave his own granddaughter polio, owing to his egomaniacal, presumptuous arrogance, which apparently gave him license to use them as guinea pigs in the forerunner polio vaccine trial (which unfortunately contained live, virulent polio strains). Not only were his own grandchildren victims, but 40,000 others contracted polio, 200 were severely paralyzed and 10 died including Oschner's grandson.

Oschner's nationwide campaign to blame cigarette smoking as the central cause of cancer, was the perfect way to conceal yet another cause for the inevitable cancer epidemic that ensued and is still going strong no matter how many people have quit smoking over the past six decades or how many billions of dollars have been generously donated to cancer research.

My biggest conspiracy theory yet.

This evening I got to thinking about how cigarettes became harmful.

They weren't harmful when scientists first started testing them. Even when they forced tiny little laboratory mice to inhale 700 cigarettes a day, which no human could ever do, the mice didn't get cancer and didn't die.

But the exhaust fumes from cars were so highly carcinogenic that many people were getting cancer and dying from the outdoor air pollution caused by cars. Since the Rockefeller oil fortune was based on killing people with fossil fuel fumes, my theory is that the Rockefellers looked around to try to find something else to blame it on. And what they noticed is that in addition to inhaling exhaust fumes in urban air, lots of people smoked. But no matter what they did, they couldn't make tobacco smoke kill laboratory mice. So, having billions, perhaps trillions of dollars even back then, they funded a lot of research on how to "improve" tobacco, and they found many toxic chemicals that would improve the taste, flavor, and aroma of cigarettes. When they let tobacco companies know about their findings, cigarette makers were quick to start putting these toxic additives in their tobacco. Now Rockefeller's scientists were able to kill laboratory mice, simply by using adulterated rather than pure tobacco, so adulterated tobacco was made the "standard," and from then on scientists were supposed to only test the "standard" tobacco instead of pure tobacco. This had nothing to do with Standard Oil, except for a coincidence in the names.

But this wasn't enough to scapegoat smoking for all the people the Rockefellers were killing. There were many vehicle accidents. So again they got their scientists to work on making tobacco more dangerous. Pure tobacco, like the organic tobacco leaves I roll my own cigarettes from, doesn't start fires because when it falls or is set down and isn't being smoked, it stops burning and goes out. But they found chemicals that could be added to tobacco to make it burn faster and to keep burning even when not being smoked. Since this would enable cigarette companies to sell more cigarettes, as cigarettes would burn more quickly and would keep burning even when not being smoked, forcing smokers to buy more cigarettes than they would otherwise, they added these chemicals to cigarettes also. Now cigarettes could be blamed for fires, because the added chemicals kept them burning when they were set down.

So now tobacco, which didn't cause any health problems and wasn't dangerous, was considered to be harmful to health and a fire hazard. When people suggested removing the added substances from tobacco and making laws to ban them, at least this is my conspiracy theory, Rockefeller money made sure that never happened.

So now, if you're standing on a busy city street, inhaling the urban air, which is the equivalent of at least two packs of cigarettes a day from vehicle pollution, and you light up a cigarette, everyone recoils in horror because you're polluting the air.

There is, according to scientists, no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke or to vehicle exhaust, but only one of the two has Rockefeller money behind it.

So everyone is required to inhale vehicle fumes, but smoking is blamed for pollution and banned.

Diabolically clever, if true. I haven't a shred of evidence to support it, but it did happen and the Rockefellers had means, motive, and opportunity to make it happen, so they're my primary suspects. Of course it's just a conspiracy theory and I could be completely wrong. Most conspiracy theories turn out to be correct, but this could be an exception to the rule. Or it might not. I'll probably never know.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Discussion Forum