Support of Smoking Bans is Support of Cigarette Cartel!
Watchdog | 03.11.2003 23:06 | Ecology | Globalisation | Health | London | World
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
Display the following 2 comments