US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Cambridge Smoke Ban Hides Cig Cartel Crimes (english)
11 Jun 2003
"Smoking" bans pretend to be For Our Protection but they represent a massive evasion of Cigarette industry liability. Bans put blame and burdens of law on the victims while ignoring the toxic, cancer-causing, burn accelerating, ETC,. non-tobacco nature of typical cigs.
The whole "wholesome" campaign is based on deceit.
"To protect workers", Cambridge, Mass. will ban indoor workplace smoking as of October 1. Here are a few points & questions not raised by either those who like smoking in bars (etc) or by those who oppose it. Anyone, smoker or not, who cares about health and the integrity of science and health agencies and organizations, and about un-corrupted regulation of ALL products, has a big stake in this. It is NOT just about "smoking".

* The word "smoking" is essentially meaningless. It has not yet been defined for content of smoke. If it's the contaminants of cigarettes that do the harm, or most of the harm, this must be made clear. Otherwise smoke from plain, organic tobacco, or even from marijuana (when it is re-legalized), may be affected without reason or study.

* The word "tobacco" has been used to promote this legislation though some brands may not contain any tobacco at all...except for a measured shot of nicotine. There are many US patents for "tobacco substitute" material made from everything from bean hulls to municipal paper waste. Use of undefined, vague, ambiguous terms makes a law illegitimate on its face. In fact, if a knowledgeable person made allegations about "tobacco" causing all the harms that are caused by typical cigarettes, it may constitute perjury if done under oath. Apparently, no studies of harms of tobacco (itself) have yet to be brought to court or legislature. How then can there be laws against it?

* Bar/restaurant proprietors and others are being made to bear the burdens of law to correct a problem that was/is not of their creation. It was not these proprietors who, for just one thing, contaminated a typical cigarette with so many chlorine adulterants that just one cigarette will give an unwitting consumer over 35 times the US established tolerable dose of dioxin. (Noting that there is NO safe dose for dioxin.)

* The dangers of "second-hand" smoke have not been established. In fact, the EPA's case against "ETS" (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) was tossed out of Federal court as insufficient. Well...if the EPA included the dioxins and the radiation (from certain fertilizers)...and if it presented evidence about harms of smoke from the hundreds of non-tobacco substances and cigarettes made from fake tobacco, it might have had a case. But...the EPA protected the chlorine and cigarette firms from this.

* Since when is there such concern for workers health? The statistics for work-related death, disease and injury are off the charts...and jobs are routinely sent abroad..."volunteers" are recruited to replace workers in many low-skill areas...rights to organize are attacked everywhere... layoffs abound...yet workers are being protected from smoke that has not yet been described!? What is being protected, instead, is the cigarette cartel, including manufacturers, all the pesticides, paper, chlorine and ingredients suppliers, all their insurers and investors AND the public officials who tolerated and facilitated the contamination of smoking products for so long.

* The officials who propose such bans are almost inevitably economically linked to the parts of the cigarette industry that seek to escape scrutiny, liabilities, PR disasters, profit losses and prosecution. If they are linked to Insurance Firms that invest in cigarette manufacture or cigarette supply, they have motive to scapegoat the tobacco plant and the "inconsiderate" smokers. If officials are linked to pesticide firms (big oil and pharmaceuticals) or various chlorine interests, the motive is huge to, again, blame anything but these non-tobacco adulterants.

* The FIRST step...of banning known toxic and carcinogenic (and fire starting) non-tobacco parts of typical cigarettes has not been taken. That is, no attempt to mitigate the harms has been done before imposing a regulation on non-industry people.

* If this smoke is so harmful, workers are being denied compensation for the past harms caused NOT by unknowing, unprotected, insufficiently-warned smokers, but by an unregulated industry and the regulators who failed their duties to protect the public from precisely this sort of harm.

* Many, if not most...if not all...the diseases attributed to "tobacco smoke" are impossible to be caused by any natural plant, even "sinful" tobacco and even incinerated. HOWEVER, many of these pathologies are known already to be effects of dioxin we learned from Agent Orange, Times Beach, Love Canal and so forth.

* The US has classified dioxin a KNOWN human carcinogen. It is only from man made chlorine, not from plants. The US also signed a treaty to phase out dioxin globally. Therefore, there is NO possible excuse for chlorine to still be in cigarettes...without a shred of warning besides. No government official can claim they "didn't know".

* Workers are not offered testing for dioxin or radiation body burdens in order to narrow down the search for culpable parties. The cigarette manufacturers are escaping the consequences of adulterating the products so incredibly, the ingredients/adulterants industries are dodging all liability responsibilities, all their insurers and investors are evading damages, and the complicit officials are dancing away from the scandal of allowing this. Officials, after years of looking the other way for the sake of campaign funding, tax revenues and future jobs, now pretend to be "shocked" at the consequences of their own actions...or inactions, preferably.

* Claims that smoke bans do not harm businesses are extremely suspicious. There are never control groups set up to compare smoking vs non-smoking bars etc. Did bar/restaurant biz grow in some areas for other reasons? Establishments that would make more money being "smoke free" would have done so ages ago. And...what does it mean regarding alcohol consumption and driving etc., that smokeless bars are making more money, as is claimed? No-smoking = more drunks?

* Judges, jurors and any public officials who are in decison-making capacities in this issue NEED to be scrutinized for links with parts of the cigarette cartel to ferret out bias and to assure the required Appearance of Justice. They might not be linked to the obvious manufacturers but, instead, to the industries involved in cigarette ingredients/adulterants, any part of the chlorine industries, and/or their insurers, investors and advertisers. Their incentive to pass blame onto the unpatented tobacco plant, and "smoky bars" etc., is extreme.

* Little help will be found at any of the "anti-smoking" groups which, based on what they ignore, make them appear to be working as "pretend enemies" FOR the broad cigarette cartel. They all ignore even publicized info about dangerous non-tobacco constituents. If they don't know about, or care to warn about or condemn, dioxins, burn accelerants, pesticide residues and the rest, they have zero credibility. Their "job" is to control the debate to absolutely minimize, or totally evade, liabilities on the complicit parties.

Business proprietors who are displeased with this ruling may need to familiarize themselves with the whole story. They are being burdened with laws that merely address the EFFECTS of corporate/gov't misdeeds, while the misdeeds remain unaddressed.

Some sources of info may be found just searching "tobacco pesticides" and "dioxin".
Plenty of info and links at:
More at:
More: > <
(In July 1998, a judge named William Osteen ruled that the EPA secondhand smoke report was full of corruption, including "falsified data and unsound analysis." He ordered the 600-page report vacated.)
More: > <

This should make it quite difficult to call this a "tobacco issue" again.
This is about chlorine/dioxin, pesticides, abysmal lack of consumer protection, unprecedented tort dodging, the "war on drugs", cutting of public health programs, campaign finance, industry corrupted science and medicine, the insurance industry, and widespread commercial media complicity.
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.