Sunday, May 20, 2001 | Print this story

The Scent of Busybody-ness

By JOHN BALZAR

Americans who have our best interests in mind, bless their busybody hearts, have brought the tobacco companies to their knees. They've purged the booze advertisements out of family publications and stigmatized the idea of social drinking. They've done a pretty good job of getting peanuts off airline menus and out of some school lunchrooms, lest someone have an allergic reaction.

Now, they're out to save us from the evils of ... perfume and after-shave in public places.

I'm sorely tempted to roll my eyes, but I'm too late. The matter has become Way Serious.

Anna M. Virtue, who is the researcher for this column, brought this backlash against perfume to my attention after she found herself visiting Community Church in Miami Beach. She was surprised to see two rows of seats labeled "no-perfume pew." It seems that a notable parishioner objected to fragrance in the presence of the divine.

Virtue inquired and discovered not a novelty but a whole anti-fragrance movement spreading through the land. Some Sierra Club chapters, presumably content with progress on other fronts, have taken up the cause of outlawing second-hand perfume in public. Halifax, Nova Scotia, has established fragrance-free policies in public buildings. California's Marin County, of course, has signed up to require perfume and non-perfume seating in restaurants.

A whole body of science and government research has come to bear in support of the idea that secondhand fragrance is a public hazard. According to the Earth Action Network, the Louisiana State University Medical Center blamed perfume for 20% of asthma attacks afflicting 14.6 million Americans. "One in five Americans may experience harm from fragrance exposures!" warns the Human Ecology Action League.

An industry journal has alerted restaurant owners. Secondhand perfume is the new tobacco. Alas, the crusade has become too important to poke fun at. We can ask, however: Where does it end? How far will we go to restrict what we do, and what we expose each other to, in the name of our common welfare?

America thinks nothing--or nothing but good--about heaping taxes on tobacco and liquor because busybodies frown on these substances and argue that drinkers and smokers add to the social costs of health care. Can a health tax or ban on fatty, salty foods be far behind? There are active movements to stigmatize and make us pay penalty taxes for greasy snacks and meat and probably a bunch of other things that are nobody's business. Or everybody's business, depending on how you look at it.

Even the size of our dinner plates is under attack. According to the publication Nation's Restaurant News, one public interest organization wants to outlaw the serving of large portions of food because the industry "should bear some responsibility for its contribution to obesity, heart disease and cancer."

Just this week, I read an essay by a man who thought that people who kept their weight and cholesterol down should get a federal tax credit. And, by the emerging logic, why not? If your waistline stays below, say, 25% of your IQ, you get $10; how about it?

Pollen allergies are even more widespread than perfume allergies. Should we be required to collectively dig up our lawns and flower beds? You can't have a barking dog that keeps the neighbors awake. Why should they suffer roses and Bermuda grass that make them sneeze all day? Why not regulate what nurseries can sell?

Yes, I'm late catching on to this trend. But instead of rolling my eyes, I'm thinking of joining up. I've got some busybody ideas of my own.

I'd be willing to pay a quarter more for an order of French fries and I'll call the haz-mat hotline to dispose of my sweet-smelling--read, dangerously perfumed--Dial soap if you'll join me in fighting one of the leading causes of illness in America: hypertension. Remember, asthma is bad, but heart disease is our No. 1 killer.

To reduce our collective blood pressure, here are just a few things we could outlaw or mercilessly overtax or forbid in public places:

* Motorcycles. Doesn't it give you palpitations to see these guys wriggle out of traffic? And the intolerable racket!

* SUVs. Sorry, but you guys really make our blood boil when you loom near so we cannot see down the road or around corners. If you've got to have one, keep it at home with the whiskey bottles.

* Children who cry, squeal or run in the aisles. After perfume and cigarette smoke, is there anything more apt to grate the nerves than a kid who acts like one in public?

* Oh yes, democracy. The way we argue, yell and get red in the face all the time, surely this can't be good for us.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

Answers

Anti-smoking "Nazis" may be much closer to the truth than many of us would like to believe. This past week a thread was running on Free Republic about a book that covers this very issue. One of the reviews I found to be particulary poignant to the subject at hand.

The Nazi War on Cancer

The Nazi War on Cancer, by Robert N.T Proctor

A Forest Blocked by Trees, December 1, 2000 Reviewer: Steven Fantina Robert Proctor presents a great deal of evidence that the nazis' exerted massive control over most facets of ordinary citizen's lives. Yet somehow, he never reaches the obvious conclusion that such compulsive regulations, even if arguably well intentioned, ultimately lead to a large scale sacrifice of basic freedoms.

He explains how the nazis greatly restricted tobacco advertising, banned smoking in most public buildings, increasingly restricted and regulated tobacco farmers growing abilities, and engaged in a sophisticated anti-smoking public relations campaign. (Suing tobacco companies for announced consequences was a stunt that mysteriously eluded Hitler's thugs.) Despite the frightening parallels to the current war on tobacco, Mr. Proctor never even hints at the analogy. Curiously, he seems to take an approach that such alleged concern for public health shows nazism to be a more complex dogma than commonly presumed. While nothing present in the book betokens even a trace of sympathy for the Third Reich, this viewpoint seems incredibly naive. It's easy to wonder if Hitler and company were truly concerned with promoting public health. The unquenchable lust for absolute control is a far more believable motive.

Incongruously some of the book's desultory details lend further certitude to its unpromulgated thesis. Hitler not only abstained from tobacco; he also never drank and was,for the most part--a vegetarian. Frighteningly he also was an animal rights activist. The book reruns a nazi-era cartoon depicting many liberated lab animals giving the nazi salute to Hermann Goring after he outlawed animal experimentation and promised to send violators to a concentration camp. Also included is a fitting quote -now too widely suppressed from Joseph Goebbles, `the fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay." Controversial as it may be in some circles, such a quote proves that nazism viewed Christianity as hatefully as it did Judaism. Passing coverage is given to the Third Reich's forays into euthanasia and eugenics. Another striking morsel is the reporting of a widespread nazi-era whispered joke `What is the ideal German? Blond like Hitler. Slim like Goring. Masculine like Goebbles...' implying that Gautlier Goebble's homosexuality was common knowledge. Nazi linguistic restrictions seem to be the counterpart of modern day `hate speech.' Words such as `catastrophe,' sabotage,' and `assassination' were to be avoided, and in a portentous move, `cripple' was replaced by `handicapped. Proctor also suggests `the word `enlightenment' (was) probably used more in the nazi period than at any other time.'

Perhaps the ultimate overlooked point of this work is the suggestion that Adolph Hitler with his anti- tobacco, anti-religion, pro-animal rights, pro-government intrusion would find success as a modern day liberal.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

Besides his strong interest and belief in astrology, Hitler was well-known as a health nut and, indeed, was a vegetarian. He was particularly fanatical about anti-smoking.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

I knew there was something about that guy I didn't like....

Like everything...

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

It isn't politically correct to admit to reading Hitler's speeches or his writings. I haven't read everything yet, but from I have read the man seems to have been a PR genius.

During the election of ... hmm ... 1992? ... I read a party platform that explicitly stated the party goals of forcing good health on everyone, among other things. Was this the Natural Law party? And the guy at the head of it was ... John ... I forget his last name. Associated with the Krishna university, I think. I could swear he's been elected to public office since then.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Sweetie, who is a bit of a military historian, says that Hitler's vegeterianism gave him gas and he was well known for farting. Which takes us right back to the Kyoto proposal. Maybe we should tax us vegetarians.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Helen, I know who you mean. He's on the faculty of Maharishi University in Iowa (the University was established by Mitch Kapor, with his Lotus Corp. millions). This last election, I think (I'm not sure of myself here) that he ran for president as the nominee of a splinter group of the Reform Party, a group which refused to back Pat Buchanan.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

http://www.natural-law.org/platform/health.html

THE NATURAL LAW PARTY is committed to ensuring a long and healthy life for every American. By bringing life into accord with natural law, the prevention-oriented health programs proposed by the Natural Law Party will significantly reduce disease and promote the health and vitality of all Americans. As our nation’s health improves, we can lift the massive burden of health care costs, thus freeing our nationÕs resources for greater progress and prosperity.

THE PROBLEM

Too many Americans suffer from poor health [1]; the U.S. has some of the worst health statistics of all industrialized countries [2]. Yet America has the highest per capita health care costs of any nation [2].

Why is the U.S. medical system such a cost-effectiveness disaster? The answer is that our health care system is really a “disease care” system -- it focuses on the management of illnesses, rather than on the prevention of disease and the promotion of health. But the vast majority of our national health is influenced by factors over which this disease-based approach has little control -- such as nutrition, stress, societal problems, and environmental toxins. Consequently, in the absence of effective prevention, our present disease care system can never create a truly healthy society.

Recent research shows that at least 50% of deaths and 70% of disease in America are self-inflicted -- caused by an epidemic of unhealthy habits, including improper diet, inadequate exercise, smoking, and alcohol abuse [3]. Thus, the vast majority of disease is preventable [4]. Incredibly, Republicans and Democrats consistently ignore proven prevention-oriented approaches to health, and Medicare specifically bans funding for most preventive services [5]. Following the federal example, most private health insurance companies also refuse to cover prevention. No health care reform bills debated in Congress have focused on improving health; they have dealt only with problems in disease-care financing and delivery, hoping to save money by streamlining and downsizing the system.

Spiraling health care costs have dramatically increased the cost of health insurance, and at least 40% of U.S. citizens are now inadequately covered or have no medical insurance. Health care expenditures have also placed a heavy burden on American businesses; if employee insurance costs continue to rise, many companies will face insolvency.

THE SOLUTION

By focusing on the prevention of disease and the promotion of health, the Natural Law Party offers a solution to the health care crisis that is comprehensive, cost-effective, and scientifically proven.

Our health care platform has two aspects.

1.1. We support health strategies that focus on prevention and strengthen the general health of the nation, thereby shifting our national focus from disease care to health care. These programs include prevention-oriented health education, including strategies to modify unhealthy behaviors, and prevention-oriented natural medicines. These preventive strategies have been shown by extensive research to create healthier citizens and to cut health care costs by 50% to 70%.

2.2. We support the introduction of financial incentives that will help prevent abuse of the health care system and ensure high-quality care. These incentives include (a) medical savings accounts for Medicare and Medicaid subscribers, which will provide financial rewards for good health [6]; and (b) vouchers enabling Medicare and Medicaid subscribers to choose any insurance plan or health care provider they desire, thereby promoting competitive costs and quality of care among medical providers. Such financial incentives will reduce demands for unnecessary care and prevent overuse of the health care system by giving greater financial control and responsibility to individual subscribers.

Through our two-pronged approach of preventive health care and financial incentives, we can rescue Medicare and Medicaid from bankruptcy, save the nation approximately $500 billion a year in health care costs, and prevent untold pain and suffering.

To structure meaningful health-benefits options for all Americans without disastrously increasing the federal budget deficit, we must responsibly decrease health care outlays per person -- a particular challenge as the population ages. The most effective and humane way to achieve this goal is to prevent disease in the first place by strengthening the human immune system and eliminating the imbalances that ultimately cause disease.

The prevention programs supported by the Natural Law Party incorporate the most up-to-date knowledge of nutrition, exercise, and stress reduction, as well as the use of natural herbal preparations, natural dietary supplements, and alternative medical treatment modalities. Americans favor such approaches. There are now more visits to alternative medicine practitioners than to conventional doctors [7]. Research has consistently shown that the prevention programs endorsed by the Natural Law Party significantly reduce the need for conventional medical treatment by empowering individuals to take better care of their own health [8].

Our national health care debate has degenerated into an argument over “who should pay for whose disease,” with little attention given to preventing disease and improving health. Funding for proven prevention services has been denied to Americans, largely because the lobbying influence of over 1,000 medical PACs (political action committees) has shaped legislation and preserved the status quo [9].

The Natural Law Party, which does not accept PAC contributions, is committed to changing this unethical and inhumane situation. During the past four years, Dr. John Hagelin and Dr. Mike Tompkins, 1996 Natural Law Party candidates for President and Vice President, have worked closely with the U.S. Congress to introduce wording into health care bills in both the House and the Senate that would provide coverage for any scientifically verified, cost-effective, proven preventive program. This proposal has such commonsense appeal that it has gained the support of conservative and liberal members of Congress alike.

The Natural Law Party’s approach to health care provides a unifying influence in the political debate by transcending surface bickering over money and solving the health crisis at its basis -- by improving the health of Americans. The enormous savings generated by the Natural Law Party’s prevention-oriented programs, coupled with the financial incentives created by medical vouchers and savings accounts, will allow the government to realistically extend high-quality health care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans.

The programs of preventive health education advocated by the Natural Law Party are also unique in raising health care to a new level: development of the full potential of every citizen and reduction of individual and societal stress by promoting life in accord with natural law. This approach goes beyond “behavioral modifications” such as smoking cessation, which have low compliance and cannot be enforced in a free society. Research shows that stress is responsible for the persistence of life-damaging habits despite overwhelming medical evidence and governmental warnings. By neutralizing individual and social stress, the Natural Law Party can improve the effectiveness of such behavioral-modification programs by significantly enhancing compliance. In this way we can achieve a lasting social transformation toward more life-supporting, health-promoting behavior among our citizens.

The Natural Law Party is unique in offering high-quality health care for all, while providing a net cost savings for the nation.

NOTES

1.The “miracles” of modern medicine have been much less effective in producing health than most Americans have assumed, according to mortality and morbidity rates in the United States. Research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that 45% of the U.S. population -- over 100 million people -- suffer from at least one chronic disease. Despite a vast array of advanced medical technologies and medications, modern medicine has no cure for these chronic diseases, only palliation (Journal of the American Medical Association 1996; 276: 1473-1479).

2.Spiraling medical expenses are an urgent governmental concern. Cost-containment strategies, including managed care, have not been entirely successful in stopping medical cost growth. In 1998, the United States will spend approximately $1 trillion on medical treatment, more than any other nation. Yet surprisingly, the U.S. has among the worst health outcomes of all industrial nations. Despite our high-tech medical treatments, Americans have comparatively poor life expectancies at birth: the U.S. ranks 20th for males and 18th for females among the 23 OECD nations and has the fifth highest infant mortality rate (Health Affairs 1997; 16(6): 163-171; Health Affairs 1994; 3(4): 100Š112).

3.See Journal of the American Medical Association 270: 2207-2212, 1993; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives, DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 91-50212, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1991; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy People 2000: Midcourse Review and 1995 Revisions, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1995.

4.Nearly 47% of premature deaths among Americans could have been avoided by changes in individual behaviors and another 17% by reducing environmental risks, according to a 1994 assessment by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In contrast, the study suggested that only 11% of premature deaths could have been prevented by improved access to medical treatment. (See CDC, Ten Leading Causes of Death in the United States, Update, Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1994).

5.Only 1% of our health sector budget is used to avoid disease, while 99% is spent to treat illness after it occurs. Astonishingly, the Federal Government also subsidizes unhealthy influences on our nation. For example, even though tobacco use is known to cause 400,000 deaths per year, including 3,000 from passive smoking, the U.S. Government subsidizes the tobacco industry. Our government also provides funding for genetic engineering and supports the nonlabeling of genetically engineered foods -- despite the potentially serious health risks of such foods and the absence of research on long-term environmental effects (see our Agriculture section). Furthermore, the current Congress cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 27% in 1995, despite the link between industrial pollution and disease suggested by the rising high incidence of cancer in America and other industrialized nations.

6.This health care option would be available to Medicare and Medicaid subscribers under a voucher system. Medical savings accounts establish an annual sum to cover subscriber health care costs; any unused portion of the account is paid directly to the subscriber each year. These accounts thus encourage savings and discourage unnecessary use of the health care system. However, this health care option also provides for catastrophic coverage at rates similar to traditional insurance plans in order to protect subscribers facing unexpected health care costs.

7.New England Journal of Medicine 328:246-252, 1993; Journal of the American Medical Association 280 (18): 1569-1575, 1998.

8.Real preventive health care averts disease before it arises -- and recent studies indicate that specific programs of behavioral prevention produce large cost savings.

A 10-year study by the University of Michigan at Steelcase Corporation reported that systematic programs of diet, exercise, and stress reduction, when targeted for subjects in high-health-risk categories, reduce total health care costs by 46% (see Medical Tribune 14, February 10, 1994).

A program designed by Dr. Dean Ornish and used in a number of American hospitals has consistently shown that systematic use of diet, exercise, and meditation in combination can clear clogged arteries -- promising large savings over the average $20,000-$50,000 cost of angioplasty and bypass surgery (see Journal of the American Medical Association 274:894-901, 1995; Lancet 336:129-133, 1990; and American Journal of Cardiology 69: 845-853, 1992).

A retrospective study of Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance data for 693 faculty, staff, and dependents at an Iowa university who used components of the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health showed that the group had 92% fewer hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease compared with statewide norms. Subjects over 45 years old had 91% fewer days in the hospital for all diseases and 88% fewer days than matched controls; total medical expenditures per person were 59% lower than norms and 57% lower than controls (American Journal of Managed Care 1997; 3(1): 135-144).

9.The AMA spent $8.5 million from January to June 1997 lobbying the Federal Government to influence national medical policymaking (Chicago Tribune, March 7, 1998, Section 1, p. 7). The American Medical Association political action committee, known as AMPAC, is one of the largest medical PACs. For a discussion of the insidious influence of such expenditures on legislation, see Starr, P., The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry, New York: Basic Books, 1984 (winner of the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction); Wolinksy, H., and Brune, T., The Serpent on the Staff: The Unhealthy Politics of the American Medical Association, New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1994; and Harmer, R.M., American Medical Avarice, New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1975.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

I was afraid I really had read that somewhere... ______________

"The programs of preventive health education advocated by the Natural Law Party are also unique in raising health care to a new level: development of the full potential of every citizen and reduction of individual and societal stress by promoting life in accord with natural law. This approach goes beyond “behavioral modifications” such as smoking cessation, which have low compliance and cannot be enforced in a free society."

____________

Behavior modification ... low compliance ... cannot be enforced in a FREE SOCIETY.

I remember now.

________________

"Research shows that stress is responsible for the persistence of life-damaging habits despite overwhelming medical evidence and governmental warnings. By neutralizing individual and social stress, the Natural Law Party can improve the effectiveness of such behavioral-modification programs by significantly enhancing compliance. In this way we can achieve a lasting social transformation toward more life-supporting, health-promoting behavior among our citizens. "

______________

Neutralizing individual and social stress ... behavioral-modification programs ... significantly enhancing compliance.

Do I want my government to NEUTRALIZE anything for me?

Do I want ENHANCED COMPLIANCE in a BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION PROGRAM?

Isn't that what boot camp is for?

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001