Support of Smoking Bans is Support of Cigarette Cartel!
Watchdog | 03.11.2003 23:06 | Ecology | Globalisation | Health | London | World
Many of those who are enjoying the "Smoking Bans" may not realize that they are being tricked into simultaneously supporting the CIG Industry, the supposed enemy. Big Cig is not just about tobacco plants but also: Big Oil, pesticides, pharms, chlorine, ag biz, radiation (!), waste materials, insurance industry, and corporate corruption of government on a broad scale.
For Injustice to Succeed, It is Best to First Apply the Injustice to People or Things that Many May Not Care to Seem to be Defending.
Ban on so-called Tobacco Smoke PROTECTS the Cig Cartel.
Forget 'Anti-smoking' and 'Pro-smoking' sides. This is about being Anti-Adding-Known-Deadly-Substances-To-Cigarettes. If people are being shot on the sidewalk, one does NOT ban 'walking on sidewalks'. One goes after the shooters. In the 'smoking' arena, the 'shooters' get off scot-free. The criminals own the cops.
Ban on so-called Tobacco Smoke PROTECTS the Cig Cartel.
Officials may ban 'smoking' in taverns and restaurants and so forth.
But, officials have not yet DESCRIBED or defined what this 'smoke' is. 'Smoke' can be of INFINITE varieties. Law, science and medicine require analysis.
Too many have, oddly, ACCEPTED the cig industry's lie that typical cigarettes are just tobacco...and that the smoke is just 'tobacco smoke'. FAR from it...unless you can find organic tobacco. This 'ban' plan is a way to PROTECT the cig cartel by pretending to oppose what Big Cig SAYS it sells.
The U.K., like others, has permitted some of the world's worst industrial elements to be in cigarettes, without a word of specific warning to anyone. And without compensation for harms.
The UK, and the wide, multi-industry cigarette cartel prefers to put burdens of law onto the VICTIMS...those who were secretly poisoned by unlisted cig adulterants, and bar/restaurant owners who had nothing to do with the cig business.
A typical cigarette is a (deep breath) Multi-Ingredient, Highly-Processed, Pesticide-contaminated, chlorine-containing, dioxin-delivering, radiation delivering, artificially-sweetened, addiction-enhanced, BURN-accelerant containing concoction, that in some cases may not contain any tobacco at all (depending on different national' laws).
A typical NEWSPAPER is more a TREE than a typical cigarette is tobacco. To CALL it 'tobacco' is a marketing scam AND a huge liability dodge. If this was made clear in courts, this 'smoking ban' charade would fade tomorrow...to be replaced by bans on untested and dangerous things added to consumer products.
Australia will not demand that cigarettes be FREE of non-tobacco substances, no matter how deadly, because this would call attention to official's irresponsibility in IGNORING the threats for so long, and it would bring liabilities upon the cigarette makers and all their suppliers and insurers and investors.
To just 'ban smoking' is to evade justice and to blame the victims. It is a fraudulent way to 'cut health costs' while exempting the Health DAMAGING firms from prosecution and liabilities. This is why the Globalizing Corporatocracy is 'anti-smoking'". It ain't for anyone's health.
Here then are some links to info that MUST be brought to public attention, to official's attention, and to all affected bar/restaurant proprietors...and smokers everywhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
** April ('03), the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) condemned lax government monitoring of tobacco pesticides. See: Wash Post >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32003-2003Apr24.html > http://ens-news.com/ens/apr2003/2003-04-25-09.asp#anchor2 http://www.ash.org.nz/doc/l-doc/0000573.html#e
> http://www.harvardhillside.com/Stories/0,1413,108~5342~1420042,00.html
>
> and these websites for toxic gases from the burning of synthetic fabrics...which happens when a Burn Accelerated cigarette may fall:
>
> http://www.avora.com/fr_body_3.html
> http://www.fibersource.com/f-tutor/health.htm
> http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd243e.html
Ban on so-called Tobacco Smoke PROTECTS the Cig Cartel.
Forget 'Anti-smoking' and 'Pro-smoking' sides. This is about being Anti-Adding-Known-Deadly-Substances-To-Cigarettes. If people are being shot on the sidewalk, one does NOT ban 'walking on sidewalks'. One goes after the shooters. In the 'smoking' arena, the 'shooters' get off scot-free. The criminals own the cops.
Ban on so-called Tobacco Smoke PROTECTS the Cig Cartel.
Officials may ban 'smoking' in taverns and restaurants and so forth.
But, officials have not yet DESCRIBED or defined what this 'smoke' is. 'Smoke' can be of INFINITE varieties. Law, science and medicine require analysis.
Too many have, oddly, ACCEPTED the cig industry's lie that typical cigarettes are just tobacco...and that the smoke is just 'tobacco smoke'. FAR from it...unless you can find organic tobacco. This 'ban' plan is a way to PROTECT the cig cartel by pretending to oppose what Big Cig SAYS it sells.
The U.K., like others, has permitted some of the world's worst industrial elements to be in cigarettes, without a word of specific warning to anyone. And without compensation for harms.
The UK, and the wide, multi-industry cigarette cartel prefers to put burdens of law onto the VICTIMS...those who were secretly poisoned by unlisted cig adulterants, and bar/restaurant owners who had nothing to do with the cig business.
A typical cigarette is a (deep breath) Multi-Ingredient, Highly-Processed, Pesticide-contaminated, chlorine-containing, dioxin-delivering, radiation delivering, artificially-sweetened, addiction-enhanced, BURN-accelerant containing concoction, that in some cases may not contain any tobacco at all (depending on different national' laws).
A typical NEWSPAPER is more a TREE than a typical cigarette is tobacco. To CALL it 'tobacco' is a marketing scam AND a huge liability dodge. If this was made clear in courts, this 'smoking ban' charade would fade tomorrow...to be replaced by bans on untested and dangerous things added to consumer products.
Australia will not demand that cigarettes be FREE of non-tobacco substances, no matter how deadly, because this would call attention to official's irresponsibility in IGNORING the threats for so long, and it would bring liabilities upon the cigarette makers and all their suppliers and insurers and investors.
To just 'ban smoking' is to evade justice and to blame the victims. It is a fraudulent way to 'cut health costs' while exempting the Health DAMAGING firms from prosecution and liabilities. This is why the Globalizing Corporatocracy is 'anti-smoking'". It ain't for anyone's health.
Here then are some links to info that MUST be brought to public attention, to official's attention, and to all affected bar/restaurant proprietors...and smokers everywhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
** April ('03), the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) condemned lax government monitoring of tobacco pesticides. See: Wash Post >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32003-2003Apr24.html > http://ens-news.com/ens/apr2003/2003-04-25-09.asp#anchor2 http://www.ash.org.nz/doc/l-doc/0000573.html#e >
http://www.harvardhillside.com/Stories/0,1413,108~5342~1420042,00.html >
> and these websites for toxic gases from the burning of synthetic fabrics...which happens when a Burn Accelerated cigarette may fall:
>
>
http://www.avora.com/fr_body_3.html >
http://www.fibersource.com/f-tutor/health.htm >
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd243e.html
Watchdog
e-mail:
jejonik@juno.com
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
re: Support of Smoking Bans is Support of Cigarette Cartel!
05.11.2003 12:30
cheers
adny
Puffer McFag
Level of safety
16.03.2004 22:02
One big problem with chlorine is that it's by-product (from manufacturing and burning, etc.) is DIOXIN...acknowledged as perhaps the worst industrial substance ever concocted.
It's a KNOWN human carcinogen...that is also known for causing immune system damage, learning disorders, nervous system disorders, pregnancy disruptions, fetal damage, and a long list of other pathologies.
It is still legal in smoke from typical cigarettes because chlorine is still permitted ikn the product adulterants. Would chlorine/dioxin make cigarettes INESCAPABLY harmful? Yes. Is this the fault of the tobacco plant? NO. It's the fault of certain industries AND their allies in gov't offices.
The radiation in cigs from Still Legal use of radiation-contaminated phosphate tobacco fertilizers, added to some natual radiation in soils, was said to be cause of MOST "smoking related" upper-respiratory cancers. Radioactive fertilzers SHOULD have been banned the day after the studies appeared. But no...they are still "legal".
Incidentally, the co-presence of dioxin, which damages the immune system, ACCELERATES any cell damage done by the rads. Safer to smoke plain tobacco? The question ought not even be asked.
Plain tobacco is the LEAST addictive form of a cigarette...in that ALL additives contribute to the Withdrawal Effect. Some additives are there specifically to promote addiction...to speed up nicotine delivery into one's system.
Some additives, like menthol, etc., so numb one's protective sense of irritaion that one can smoke on and on and just not FEEL the damage being done. This is still legal as well...made so by our "concerned" public officials.
If one smoked plain tobacco, one would not WANT to smoke so much and one would get NONE of the known toxic, carcinogenic, immune damaging, etc., non-tobacco substances.
So...is it PERFECTLY SAFE to smoke pure tobacco? Is is Perfectly Safe to swim in a lake?
Nothing is 100% safe...but if certain industries put some of the worst industrial substances INTO the cigarette, or the lake, it's not "smoking" or "swimming" that's the problem...it's the industrial poisons.
Watchdog