Join the fight for your rights. Only £1 per month to be involved in Justice4Smokers.

How an ideology corrupts the law!

Here we have a superb case of….. well I’m not absolutely sure what it is except totally corrupt as a court has ruled against Tobacco Companies basically stating that it is the TC’s fault that people took up smoking, thus got ill, thus died etc etc. The evidence provided, from what has been gleaned thus far, is pathetic. Here is the article so that you can judge for yourselves:-

Judge awards $15 billion to Quebec smokers in ‘historic’ ruling


Now anyone who knows me will know ,that I will not sit down down and simply think “oh, righty ho then” for this ruling is as ridiculous as the EU’s ruling against Madam Kay Labate’s case where they found her claim to be “manifestly unfounded”!

Consequently I have written to all three legal teams ( who are appealing without doubt) so as to make them completely aware of the duplicity involved & used by the anti-tobacco loons. here is a copy of that letter:-


Head Office,

37, Windley Road,







Forwarded to:,
Imperial Tobacco ($10.5 billion),
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges ($3.1 billion)
JTI-Macdonald ($2 billion).

Dear all,
I write as a non-smoker and as a cancer sufferer myself as I find that the ‘evidence’ presented to the Supreme Court is weak & appalling but not quite as appalling as the ruling of that court. Allow me to point certain things out:
a)… “For Lise Blais, the judgment was bittersweet. One of the two lawsuits that eventually merged into one was filed by her husband, Jean-Yves Blais, shortly before he died of lung cancer in September 2012 at the age of 68.”
OK, we are sorry for her loss but her husbands smoking habit was caused by himself in the first instance, not by anyone else! Did either of the three mentioned tobacco companies threaten Mr Blais with violence if he did not start  smoking, whether that had been in his early/late teens or in his 40’s? I don’t think so – it was his personal choice to smoke, as it is for millions of other smokers around the globe! No judge in the world can assert that Tobacco companies forced people to take up smoking!
b)… For how many years have the possible dangers of smoking been publicly aired? The answer is at least 60+ as Sir Richard Doll first linked smoking as a possible cause of lung cancers (but not totally proven as yet I might add). https://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/researchers/richard-doll-biography
OK, so smoking was linked as a possible cause of lung cancer but so are so many other things, including Air Pollution & (more importantly) Diesel Fumes as very well pointed out in the 1980’s by Dr Kitty Little (but her work was ‘buried‘ as it didn’t suit the growing anti-tobacco organisations. http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html#.VW2KqVIYJvk  Diesel fumes are a proven killer, cigarette smoke is not! Dr Douglas Noble (British Medical Association [BMA] ) went so far as to publicly state that “Smoking in your car is more damaging to health than breathing in exhaust fumes” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2009520/Smoking-car-damaging-health-breathing-exhaust-fumes.html
Of course, the challenge was immediately sent to Dr Noble whereby, as a non-smoker, I would sit in a sealed car WITH 4 people smoking continuously, whilst Dr Douglas Noble sat in an exactly replicated sealed car with exhaust fumes pumped in for a period of 20 minutes. I am mortified that the good Dr, with ‘all his years of medical knowledge’, did not take me up on the offer: thus I can only conclude that his words were, as much of the medical professions words are when smoking is involved, vastly over exaggerated & spurious! This shows that no judge in the world can take any ‘facts’ stated by the medical profession as gospel!

1 month old and already ‘smoking’!

We tend to think of smoking as the ‘big bad wolf‘ of lung conditions but it is most definitely NOT. Exhaust fume are. This simple picture of a young mother happily parading her 1 month old baby in her pushchair shows quite clearly that the infant is ‘smoking‘ at 1 month old as those disgustingly filthy & toxic exhaust fumes surround both the mother & infant, who both inhale as they walk the streets; ie, the infants lungs are already being infected. On this basis alone, no judge in the world can lay the blame at the smokers nor the Tobacco industries door!

            Now let us revert to [ a) ] again for it states “…..shortly before he died of lung cancer in September 2012 at the age of 68”. Clearly written as if smoking was the one and only cause of the lung cancer, but was it? What was written on the Death Certificate? Did it actually state that cause of death WAS SMOKING? I doubt it very much. As 80% of lung cancer cases occur in non-smokers it is most probable that smoking did not cause the onset of lung cancer and as most cancers lay dormant, within the body for years on end, it can take the smallest bump, knock or jolt for those cancer cells to start mutating. Mrs Lise Blais also states the case as if her husband died ‘prematurely’ even though he lived until the age of 68; this is NOT the case. (The world average for year 2010 was 67.2 yrs, thus Mr Blais had actually exceeded that figure!) A mountain of longevity information can be found here which will prove beyond all reasonable doubt that demographics also play a large part in health, life & death! Upon even this simple research no sane judge can find the Tobacco Companies the sole contributors to peoples deaths-whether they be smokers or otherwise!

There is no such thing as a ‘premature death’ for the simple reason that no one single person has a date/time stamp about their person when they are born-they live as long as they live! A baby could live for 120 seconds or grow old and live for 120 years as did Mdme Jeanne Calment: who knows how long anyone will live? The term ‘premature’ is merely a term derived from a set of numbers that have produced a theoretical age of death over the past 50 years and is therefore basically irrelevant as any form of scientific measure of longevity. One hundred years ago the average age (longevity) was a mere 31 years of age in some parts but medical advancements have greatly advanced that figure.  It happens to suit the anti-smoking lobby as any death prior to the age of 70 (our three score & ten) can be brought into play as an example. Interestingly, when asked, prominent members of the above organisations don’t want to answer when this question is posed:- “Why is it that the six (6) oldest people ever to have lived all smoked?” On this basis no judge in the world can rule that life was cut short by smoking.

It also needs to be noted that a serious contender for cancer causation has been the rapid growth of heavy industry, for as industrialisation came to the fore so did the number of cancer cases. And when you consider that in the 1950’s (in Great Britain especially) when 75% of the population smoked, there was also a “baby boom” which is now financially crippling our welfare state system. There are now in excess of 10,000 centenarians in Britain – and they all survived those lazy, hazy days of the smoky 50’s. Strangely enough, as smoking rates naturally decreased from the 1950’s, cancer cases continually rose (990 new cases daily –Macmillan Cancer) – and still are! So, again, no sane judge can lay the blame specifically on the Tobacco Companies for people smoking as it was their choice to smoke and they obviously enjoyed the act of smoking.

Returning to the article: “Your health is completely lost,” she said as she clutched photos of her late husband. In an interview in March 2012, Blais said he had tried to quit “five or six times in the last 14 years,” although some of the remedies triggered depression.

Fact: your health is NOT completely lost at all. There are many famous sportsmen & women who smoke simply because they enjoy a cigarette/pipe and many of those sports men/women have represented their countries! If Mr Blais ‘tried’ to quit 5/6 times then the answer is very simple – he has/had very little willpower. There are many people who simply decided to give up and did so, but there are also many who wasted a small fortune of useless NRT (98.4% failure rate) products before reverting back to actual tobacco smoking or jumping on the much more effective ‘vaping’ (e-cigarettes) cessation products. It can only be concluded that the perpetration of the smoking bans was created by the Big Pharmaceutical Companies to greatly enhance the vast profits of those Big Pharmaceutical Companies who rushed out smoking cessation products prior to proper testing etc – why else would Pfizer have settled out of court regarding the 2,500+ cases of hallucinatory episodes (some resulting in death) who were prescribed Champix/Chantix/Varencline?

Similarly, Pfizer are now in a serious situation where users of their ‘hormone drugs’ are suing the company as they claim the drugs have CAUSED cancerous cells! Also, Pfizer have been hit with more than 2,000 lawsuits involving patients who developed type-2 diabetes after taking Lipitor for the treatment of high cholesterol. Over 500 lawsuits have been filed this year alone, bringing the total number of lawsuits in the federal court system to 2,185. Hundreds of additional lawsuits are also pending in various state courts around the nation. Note that Mr Blais was reported, by his wife, “five or six times in the last 14 years,” although some of the remedies triggered depression.” Depression is the exactly result of the anti-smoking drugs prescribed, which is why Big pharma set out to amass a fortune from government backed oppression of those who chose to use a legal product for enjoyment. They amassed that fortune at the great expense of human beings and whereas it can be proven that such as Chantix etc was the causation of the unbalanced mind that led to the death of a person, it CANNOT be categorically proven that smoking a cigarette, pipe or ‘bong’ was the one and only cause of a person’s lung cancer.

            I note that Mrs Blais holds up the ‘sympathy card’ (the photo) – it means nothing as my wife’s family have lost nine (9) members to cancer yet only one of them ever smoked. Cancer Research UK final admitted (after many search letters) that, in their opinion, 25% of cancer deaths simply cannot be explained! Again, at the end of any argument it is the individual’s right to decide for himself/herself as to whether they take up smoking or not. Mr Blais decided in favour of smoking, none of the companies forced him to!

Now to this most ridiculous part: By choosing not to inform either the public health authorities or the public directly of what they knew, the companies chose profits over the health of their customers,” Riordan wrote. “Whatever else can be said about that choice, it is clear that it represent a fault of the most egregious nature and one that must be considered in the context of punitive damages.”

We have already discussed the fact that the link between smoking, inhaling tobacco smoke (not industrial smoke nor diesel fumes mind!) was established by Sir Richard Doll in 1950, so how does Judge Riordan conclude that Tobacco compani9es chose NOT to inform the public when the knowledge was already out there? Indeed (I quote) “JTI-Macdonald said Canadians have been well aware of the health risks since the 1950s and health warnings have been on packages for more than 40 years!” That statement rather negates Judge Riordan’s ridiculously biased assertion that the Tobacco companies did nothing!

Another point to note is this ridiculous statement: “Cecilia Letourneau filed on behalf of the province’s smokers who were addicted to nicotine and remained addicted or who died without quitting”. This is as absurd a ‘charge’ as ‘charges’ can get, for if people haven’t got the willpower to stop smoking then they need to find some resolve from somewhere! Smoking cigarettes is not akin to the highly addictive cocaine or heroin which leaves the ‘taker needing another fix’ so as to ‘get that buzz’ again. Cigarette smokers come in all shapes & sizes (metaphorically) as some are quite happy social smokers, enjoying 3 or 4 cigarettes per day, some slightly more aggressive smokers @ 10-20 cigarettes per day, some are more serious smokers 20/40 per day and some are ardent smokers using up to 80 cigarettes per day yet anyone of them (providing they do possess some willpower) can stop instantly and totally switch their minds off with regard to smoking. That doesn’t mean to say that they don’t want a cigarette ever again for there are many stressful situations along life’s rocky path where I have no doubt that a nice calming, soothing cigarette would be most welcome but if a person has decided to cease smoking that will person will not weaken.

“Cecilia Letourneau filed on behalf …..or who died without quitting.” So are we to assume that this pantomime was inclusive of all people who smoked, even though it was their own choice to smoke? Did the court prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that each of these persons that smoked of their own free will died solely because they smoked? Did the smoker that was hit by a bus die from smoking, exhaust fumes or a broken body? Did the rock climber fall to his death because he smoked or because a rope came loose or because of a rock fall? Anyone who smokes can give up that act IF they have the willpower – but as they are no longer here to tell a tale, how can any lawsuit support such a ridiculous claim without the ‘living proof’ from death certificates etc? (none of which will categorically state that smoking WAS the cause of death!)


It is well known in this completely anti-tobacco climate, initiated in this country by Sir George Edward Godber (see frame below) with his disgraceful 1975 speech to the World Health Organisation  when the lie/fabrication was set in stone:- a lie became a law!


It is also very well known that the ‘Goebbels theory’ of “tell a lie often enough and people will eventually believe it to be true” has worked exceedingly well for those that dislike tobacco usage have jumped on the bandwagon rather enthusiastically and are the basis of these many ridiculous lawsuits. May I remind all who read this that the EU found that Mdm Kay Labate’s case to be unproven as her husband’s death “was not caused by 28 years of working in a ‘smoky atmosphere’” and the claim is manifestly unfounded(!) – although, somewhat remarkably, the EU decided that 79,000 deaths per year were attributable to smoking/passive smoking! In fact, to better that finding from the EU’s Supreme Court, America’s very own scientists dismissed smoking basically!

“Do you not find it extraordinary that the world’s largest studies into the effects on mortality of SHS have been totally ignored for the purposes of justice? These included the Enstrom/Kabat study of more than 116,000 people over 38 years, Wu/Williams study, the WHO’s own study and last but not least our own (GB) Health & Safety study-all of which could find no link between SHS and increased mortality. In fact, 83% of the world’s studies have concluded the same!”

As stated, I don’t smoke and I am a cancer sufferer but I do respect the choices of others whereas some obviously don’t! I was born into a democratic country, not too long after the war but thanks to bigoted people such as the many in the anti-smoking lobby I certainly won’t be dying in that same democratic state! Fight for your right to smoke wherever you are for it is 95% harmless steam being emitted, please do not bow to the bigotry of others, instead, ask them the pertinent questions my friends:

a)       How many people have died from actual SHS? (0)

b)      How many people have died from vaper’s SHS (0)

c)       Why were the 6 oldest people ever to live all smokers?

d)      Why are 49% of lung transplants direct from smokers?

e)       How many jobs have been lost to smoking bans in this country? (GB) (250,000+)

f)        How much does this S/B cost this country (GB) every single month? (£1/2 bn)

g)       How many people still smoke (approximately the same 25%)

h)      How many suicides has the S/B provoked? (3) (GB)

i)         How many ex-businesses were forced into bankruptcy  (5,000+)

j)         How many pubs are still closing (12-18 per week) etc, etc

k)       Why is it that 100% of non-smokers die?

l)         Why is it that 100% of smokers die?

I could go through the alphabet with everything that is wrong with this ridiculous smoker-phobia and I’m afraid it is easy to see why so many people want to take legal action against Tobacco Companies-they have been swept along on the crest of a very ugly wave of hatred, a hatred fuelled by governments worldwide.

I hope that some of this information is of use to your good selves for we in Britain are fighting a lonely path for freedoms of choice to be returned. We have a gentleman who wants to take legal action against the government as they have “stolen/taken away his social life” – it’s on our website under the name of Alan Auld. If I can be of any further use/help to you please get in touch and I will always endeavour to be of assistance.

My best wishes

Phil Johnson






Footnote: It will be very interesting to see if we do actually get a reply from these big companies for I think we can provide them with untold amounts of information!


Hit Counter provided by orange county divorce attorney