Zappa Interview Excerpt

[captainsousie]

Found this excerpt on a website that was discussing famous smokers. I'm sure that this has been posted but I haven't seen it yet. He's one of my all-time favorite musicians and guitarists so I'm happy to hear some good, intelligent commentary on the subject of smoking.

JON WINOKUR - When you are out and around, do you encounter much anti-smoking sentiment?
FRANK ZAPPA - [Lighting a cigarette] Well, I'm not here to impinge on anybody else's lifestyle. If I'm in a place where I know I'm going to harm somebody's health or somebody asks me to please not smoke, I just go outside and smoke. But I do resent the way the nonsmoking mentality has been imposed on the smoking minority. Because, first of all, in a democracy, minorities do have rights. And, second, the whole pitch about smoking has gone from being a health issue to a moral issue, and when they reduce something to a moral issue, it has no place in any kind of legislation, as far as I'm concerned.
JON WINOKUR - But if you look at the studies, side-stream smoke is harmful.
FRANK ZAPPA - I'm not buying the data. First of all, it comes to you from the United States government. If you thought by stamping out all tobacco smoke in the United States you were going to improve the quality of life for everybody in the country, you'd be a lunatic. The things that will really harm you, the government won't

touch.
JON WINOKUR - For example?
FRANK ZAPPA - Dioxin in toilet paper, dioxin in tampons, dioxin in water filters, dioxin in coffee filters, dioxin in tea bags, dioxin in your vegetables because of the runoff from paper plants. Why do they have to bleach paper to make it white, anyway? It seems paltry, punitive, and insignificant to go after smokers, who are not

an insignificant minority but about forty-five percent of the population. The way I would deal with the problem is induce *more* people to smoke, make them the majority and then... kick ass!

 

[trucha]

He also died when he was 53. Must've been the dioxin.

 

[captainsousie]

Considering he died of an aggressive type of prostate cancer and prostate cancer has been positively linked to high-level dioxin exposure, yeah.

 

[phred]

I used to own a copy of Zappa's autobiography - he also remembered playing with blobs of mercury as a kid, chasing them around on the floor...
Ah, the good old days. 8O

 

[mso489]

Zappa was a brilliant guy. He made a fortune in rock'n'roll, but he was musically wide-ranging and was

a composer and a avant guarde musician as well, going way outside the rock genre. I don't think it was

easy being Frank Zappa, but I think he squeezed a long, long life into his 53 years. To the best of my

knowledge, tobacco smoking has not been linked to prostate cancer, nor has dioxin for that matter.

Cancer isn't one illness, and it is multi-factoral in nearly all cases, with individual susceptibility being

one factor.

 

[batdemon]

FZ was a musical genius, one of my favorites.

 

[brian64]

To the best of my knowledge, tobacco smoking has not been linked to prostate cancer, nor has dioxin for that matter.

There does seem to be a lot of info on a link between dioxin and prostate cancer. Below is one example.
Agent orange exposure linked to life-threatening prostate cancer
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130513083044.htm

 

[jerry]

Big lifelong fan of FZ. I also had prostate cancer, but got it diagnosed before it spread too far. It was intermediate stage and moderately aggressive. If I didn't get the PSA test, it might have been a very sad story for me.

 

[mso489]

brian64, yes, I think it was more than 20 years ago that the federal VA accepted Agent Orange exposure

and a diagnosis of many illnesses including prostate cancer as a service connected disability. Being a

Vietnam combat zone vet and a former (years ago) veterans benefits counselor (before that decision,

incidentally) I vote whole heartedly for this decision. I'm not sure the paper products and other consumer

products cited by Frank Zappa in his interview are at the same level of exposure as Agent Orange in vets.

I don't think so. I'm not sure the science on even Agent Orange is definitive, but as a matter of public

policy in a vulnerable population of Agent Orange exposed vets, I think that is the only right decision.

There are few other examples of the levels of selflessness exhibited by members of the armed services.

Admiral Zumwalt, a Vietnam era chief of Naval Operations, made the decision to use Agent Orange as a

defoliant, which was tragic for him personally, as both his son's life was shortened, and his grandson's

health was (apparently) dramatically affected by the chemicals. His son was on the ground in Vietnam.

Coincidentally, I spoke with Admiral Zumwalt long after he had retired, by chance, when he phoned an

agency where I worked. He was upbeat and cheerful about the war years, in our very brief conversation,

even after all his tragic losses.

 

[brian64]

@mso489: Good point regarding the level of exposure...I thought of that right away myself. But something that is not addressed nearly often enough imo, is the fact that toxins can be bioaccumulative. Exposure to known toxins is typically played down due to the the levels being in trace amounts...but it is also known that these things bioaccumulate over time with continuous exposure.
Of course not everyone is equally affected by such things...IMO, this is primarily due to some people having a genetic predisposition. I don’t believe it’s an either/or question, but that the genetic trigger would remain dormant if not for the toxic exposure, especially when coupled with nutritional deficiencies...there is a body of evidence indicating this.
As for having more conclusive science related to all things cancer, well, IMO, there are very powerful interests that don’t want that...at least not for the general public.
Below is an excerpt from President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell speech to the nation, which I consider to be vitally relevant to the topic at hand (and I suspect FZ would have as well)...although I’m sure many would disagree:

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present–and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.