Smoking Brouhaha a Scam...by BOTH Sides

international | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis

Wednesday July 23, 2003 01:17

by Watchdog

jejonik at juno dot com

Corporatocracy wants another Prohibition

Anti-smoking groups protect the cigarette industry from the most serious indictments, revelations, charges and liabiliies. "Smokers' Rights" groups do the same. Big Oil (tobacco pesticides), for one, is ignored even as we oppose its oily invasion of Iraq.

Though this is about an event in New York, it applies to Ireland's "smoking" situation. Copy and deliver to a local pub proprietor...or his/her attorney.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thursday, July 24, there is to be a protest demo at New York City Hall (1:00 pm) against the Smoking Bans in bars/restaurants etc.
Generally, this is pushed by "smokers' rights" groups affiliated with Big Cig, and by others who say they are "independent" but MAY be, instead, linked to cig-investing insurance firms, pharmaceuticals that hope to keep their tobacco pesticides, cigarette additives and chlorine/dioxin in general out of the smoking inquiry, PR firms that work for any of the cigarette ingredients/adulterants suppliers, or etc.

Just one outrage of this "wholesome" campaign is that it now purports to be "protecting workers". Really? Where else in this establishment do we see this "concern" for workers' health or ANYTHING? Workers are being denied jobs, having jobs shipped overseas, denied protection from work safety violators, denied rights to organize, having their pensions stolen, getting their health benefits cut, denied air time on public airwaves, denied overtime pay, and are being killed, injured or poisoned by job-site violations across the board.
Ah, but they will now be "protected" from "smoke", even from their own cigarettes...smoke that has not yet been even ANALYZED or described for content! Workers will be fined, fired or arrested for failing to protect themselves from a product that they think (and are told) is tobacco. Far, far from it. No one involved with SPIKING the products, to use John le Carre's term, will face any difficulties. And not one previously-harmed worker will get a cent in compensation for effects of the non-tobacco toxins in most cigs. Big Cig, however, will be protected from having to pay. Irony, eh? To be "anti-smoking", generally speaking, is to support the cigarette cartel.

Smoking bans, said to be for protecting workers or cutting expenses for public health programs, are "Fly Swatter" scam approaches to a problem that COULD be solved simply, at the source, by being absolutely clear, especially in areas of science, medicine and law, about what is IN a typical cigarette. THEN the snowball effect will take over. The costs must be borne NOT by the public Or by "sin-taxed" smokers (the victims) but by the perpetrators...including those in public office (like NYC Mayor Bloomberg?) who paved the way, profitably, for the whole disaster.

Here is a rap just on the Rights issue...with a few links for back-up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The day may come, soon, that any home with maids, butlers or baby sitters will have to be "smoke free". We can fully expect pregnant mothers or mothers with children to have children taken from them if they smoke. Homes with under-18 year old kids...smoke free too? (Pesticides, toxic household chems etc to be ok though.) Why not ALL homes "smoke free" in that there's that "fire risk"? How about No Cigs Allowed, period, in National Parks?...with this pretense used to search and check papers of all vehicles and hikers.

Regarding Rights:

Smokers DO have a Right to maximally safe cigarettes.

They have a right to KNOW what's in the products.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/additives/

They have a right to life and health and to NOT be secretly exposed to some of the worst industrial toxins ever developed.

They have rights to PROTECTION from this stuff since, after all, they paid taxes to implement consumer protections from EXACTLY such things.

They have rights to COMPENSATION...from all complicit parties.

They have a right to use organic tobacco which, after all, has not yet been STUDIED for the harms said to be "smoking related".

They have rights to clear wording in laws..so that "tobacco" and "smoke" and all the currently vague, meaningless words are qualified for content.

They have a right to know if their gov't representatives are working for interests that cause harm in such products.

They have a right to know their accusers...namely, those in the "anti-smoking" community who may actually be part of the broad cigarette cartel seeking to limit liabilities to only tobacco...while ignoring the dioxins and rads and burn accelerants, at nauseam.

They have a right to judges and jurors who are NOT somehow economically linked to the broad cartel (insurers, chlorine, pesticides, oil, ETC.). And, they have a right to judges/jurors with no religious or other prejudice against certain uses of natural plants.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2000/march/insurers_are_major_i.php

They have a right to INFORMED CONSENT...to know about and choose to accept or reject veritable experiments on themselves with many hundreds of untested cigarette additives...not to mention the almost infinite combination effects.

"Secondhand smokers" (incl. bar/restaurant workers) have a right to protection from whatever harmful non-tobacco substances are in the smoke because of cigarette makers' PUTTING it there, in secret, with full permission of gov't officials. If the primary smokers have no CHANCE of knowing this and are being unwittingly harmed themselves in ways that plain tobacco cannot do, how dare any "anti smoker" put blame on them just because they are near at hand (and relatively powerless) while utterly ignoring the root causes, the powerful ones, in industry and gov't?

On the Other Hand....
The Cig Cartel has NO right to put or allow known deadly industrial ingredients into products of mass consumption;

Cig cartel has NO right to include any secret ingredients.

Cig cartel has NO right to include untested non-tobacco ingredients;

It has NO right to maximize chance of fires via added Burn Accelerants.
http://www.ameriburn.org/advocacy/fireSafeCig.htm

It has NO right to maximize addictive levels through use of Addiction-enhancing additives.

It has No right to trick people into smoking fake tobacco that may constitute part or all of some brands.

It has NO right to lure kids to the products with many added flavorings, sweeteners, aromas and soothing additives.

It has NO right to add menthol which so numbs a person's defense against irritation that this protective tool is made useless.

It has NO right to evade scrutiny, compensatory payments and penalties.

It has no right to corrupt our very medical and science establishments in order to protect chlorine, pesticides, etc...and all the suppliers, insurers and investors.

It has no right to itself blame the tobacco plant after the industry itself contaminated the end products to a degree unprecedented in any other product.

It has no right to lie, poison and kill...or to retain profits from doing so for generations...since about when chemicals entered the picture in the 1930s or so.

To test the legitimacy of any Anti Or Pro Smoking entity...simply ask if they'll sign onto this statement.
If you are not a smoker or couldn't care less about this issue...remember, it's NOT really about "smoking"...it's about enormous evasion of industrial liability, and the industrial corruption of our ENTIRE consumer protection system.
It's about perhaps YOUR "health" insurer being PART of the health damaging industries via investments in, and/or insurance business with, such industries. It's about the continuing War on Nature and natural plants...done most horrifically with Reefer Madness.
Shall it happen again with the tobacco plant?...with benefit to the same toxic, environmentally destructive industries that cooked up the pot/hemp prohibition?

This trick WORKS because the mainstream may not like "smoking" or "smoke" and so...all injustices can work, with few complaints. Injustice is injustice...even if it happens to those people, or those things, we don't like.

BAN SECRET, TOXIC, CARCINOGENIC, BURN-ACCELERATING, ADDICTION-ENHANCING NON-TOBACCO CIGARETTE ADULTERANTS....NOW !

save preference

Comments (11 of 11)

smoking

by frog

Wed Jul 23, 2003 02:02

The Vintner lobby will only act to improve air quality if barstaff start suing them for respiratory illnesses and that looks a long way off.

It's remarkable how many claims they are making about the quality of air filtering that is available as an alternative to banning smoking. In reality these air filters are expensive so they either don't install or don't turn them on.

Best observation I read was a doctor contrasting the reaction to phone masts where nothing is proved (but much suspected) with the attitude to smoking where the damage from smoking is well established.

Right To Smoke

by Red 1913 - SY

Wed Jul 23, 2003 11:02

This is yet another attack on Working Class people by the paternalistic Middle Class. Some barworkers want to smoke. It should be decided on a workplace basis, not imposed by the state or Trade Union Barons.

Smokers

by non-smoker

Wed Jul 23, 2003 11:32

I've always wondered why so many people who (I assume) oppose the evilmegacorporations of this world are smokers. At the recent anti-war protests I found it hard to find a bit of space where I wasn't surrounded by smokers! Surely this is just another form of slavery or addiction to the capitalist system.

Red 1913

by Agnostic ex-smoker

Wed Jul 23, 2003 12:09

So some barworkers want to be able to smoke? Fine, they can smoke outside.

Are you saying then that legislation for workplace safety should be only decided on a workplace by workplace basis? I take it you'd then be happy when the large building contractors only employ labour that's willing to work on unsafe building sites (well, it's their choice to wear helmets or not, and to go up on unsafe scaffolding or not).

I'm sure the Vintners Association is very happy to have you as an ally.

Non smoker:

by MG

Wed Jul 23, 2003 12:21

I seriously hope you're taking the piss. Slavery to the capitalist system? I really am starting to get worried about some of the people who use this site. I smoke because I choose to smoke. I enjoy it and I make no apologies for that. Is eating food a form of slavery to the capitalist system? How about drinking alcohol? Maybe wearing clothes is also a form of slavery of capitalism?

PS: I also support the ban on smoking in workplaces, because non-smoking workers should not be put in a situation that could be detrimental to their health. As for non-smoking customers - It was always your choice whether or not to go to the pub, restaurant, etc. If you hated smoking that much, you could have simply avoided those places.

Bar customers make a conscious decision to go to the pub for a drink, knowing that they will be in a smoky environment. Nobody ever forced them to make this decision.

The legislation being introduced in January is specifically designed to protect workers, not customers, and rightly so...

A Really simple solution

by lone gunman

Wed Jul 23, 2003 12:59

Why not just have smokers only bars?Owned,staffed and frequented by smokers.You know if you go into that bar,you will be in a non healthy athmosphere if you are a non smoker.Or will the equality nazis get upset about this and demand acess to a smoking bar because they have a "right" to do so?

the real inequality of Smoking.

by iosaf

Wed Jul 23, 2003 13:24

That Margaret princess of England could by virtue of wealth, class and position be the lucky recipient of lung tumor treatment.
Treatment which included prognosis:
regular endoscopic examination of the lung.
diagnostic care:
removal of tumorous material both bening and malignant from the lung.

Margaret was first diagnosed as suffering from lung cancer in the 1960s. She lived with that condition for thirty years. Just before her death her body was functioning well on about 75% of normal lung area.

The real inequality is HEALTH CARE.

I have lost dear dear friends to lung and other cancers, caused by environmental factors, cancers that could have been treated with the medical knowledge and surgical techniques available _now_ to the ·mega rich·.

= it really is that simple.

Slavery

Wed Jul 23, 2003 15:12

I was joking with the "slavery" bit. I was just wondering how people can be against globalisation, corporate influence, etc. and still buy one of the more unpleasant products.

Smokers rights?

by Smoker

Thu Jul 24, 2003 00:16

I have reluctantly come around to the idea of supporting the ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. My first reaction as a smoker was horror at the prospect of having to drink my pint of stout minus a cancer stick in my hand. However I can see the merits of the arguement that passive smoking causes illness and even fatal illnesses such as cancer. Therefore even the idea of allowing some pubs to have seperate smoking rooms would not work because the staff would be effected. So I think that us nicotine addicts will just have to get used to the inconvenience of having to go outside for a smoke.

Smokiest Bars around

Thu Jul 24, 2003 00:38

Mulligans on Poolbeg street leads the way in terms of smoke - the average punter goes to the jacks there to gasp for air and occasionally pee.

The absolute smokiest bar around must be the Cabra House on Faussagh Ave(formerly the Oasis)where the punters fart to improve air quality.

Many have missed the point here...

Thu Aug 07, 2003 01:22

Either many missed the point, or I failed to make it clear.

This is NOT about "smoking"! This is a meaningless word UNLESS one is clear about WHAT is being smoked...and it is NOT what they say..."tobacco".

Tobacco is one thing.
Cigarettes are another. Unless clearly organic (an unfortunate rarity), they are chlorine-contaminated, dioxin-delivering, radiation-delivering (from certain fertilizers, addiction-ehnanced, burn-accelerant adulterated, processed Industrial Concoctions.

We are told not to smoke NOT to protect our health but to protect those who MADE the damn things so toxic, cancer-causing, addictive and fire-starting (depending on any national laws against such adulterants).

We, the victims of decades of pesticide-residues in cigs (just one source of dioxins in the concoctions) are asked to bear the burdens of law and prohibitions and demonization...while those who PUT the stuff into cigs, who made it LEGAL...all dance away from liabilities.

The Anti Smoke crusade is foisted on local officials (also silent about non-tobacco toxins etc) as a way to simply cut health costs AND to get workers to work more with less Sick Time. Yeah...nice that they won't get sick so much but...those who MADE them sick here enjoy the joke of being seen as "concerned" about workers AND health. Note that little is done to remove OTHER dioxin sources from work places...the bleaches, cleansers, pesticides, synthetic fabrics, etc. ...and NOTHING is done to note that typical cigarettes are sources of dioxin. Beneficiaries of all this (despite 'wholesome', anti-corporate wrapping) are big chlorine, Big oil and pharms (tobacco pestcide residues), paper (more chlorine in bleach), corporate farms (many non-tobacco ingredients AND all their insurers and investors.

Searches all over creation have not turned up ONE study of TOBACCO...that is, without the adulterants...with any analysis of what's ADDED to or contaminating the tobacco.
There can only be a 'War on Tobacco' this way if we are not informed about what the products are. A natural, public domain, traditionally used, unpatentable plant is being "convicted" without a trial...scapegoated for the massive, global crimes of cigarette makers AND their suppliers and insurers and investors.

It's Reefer Madness, again...and, interestingly,for the benefit of the SAME industries pretty much, that benefit from cannabis prohibition...chlorine, petrochemicals, pharms, pesticides and the rest. By their painting this as "anti corporate", they have many actually SUPPORTING them! Sick stuff, eh?

Natural tobacco, smoked or not, CANNOT biologically or otherwise cause most of the illnesses said to be "smoking related"...whatever scientific validity that term has. However...Chlorine's by-product, Dioxin, is Well Known to cause such things. Remember Agent Orange, for one? DDT for another? The corporatocracy, up to HERE in chlorine, tells us it's not THEIR fault...it's that "evil" plant, tobacco. It nature's fault once again.

If anyone wants to challenge this stuff, all that's needed is QUESTIONING...about What do you MEAN by "smoke"? What do you mean by "cigarette"?
Do you mean PLAIN tobacco or chlorine contaminated tobacco? And...(to officials), Are you economically linked to any non-manufacturing parts of the cigarette cartel?

Tobacco isn't corporate. It's a plant that's been co-opted and USED and grossly contaminated by corporate interests. Typical cigarettes, on the other hand, are corporate.
They are Exhibit A in the case against ANY private corporate influence in PUBLIC governing.

Tobacco, Si! Contaminated Cigarettes, No!

Going this route will do much to prevent yet another prohibition of yet another plant substance.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Smoking Brouhaha a Scam...by BOTH Sides

Comments (11 of 11)