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 ::
No Blood for...Tobacco Pesticides ?? (english)
03 Dec 2002
The European Union, copying some US policies, plans to ban what it calls "tobacco ads". However the ban is as fraudulent as the ads it targets. In fact, it benefits the broad cigarette cartel...and even Big Oil. (Why Boston's anti-smoking group, INFACT, doesn't notice this is a mystery.)
It is troubling to see the news that fifteen EU nations approved a ban on "tobacco" ads.
For starters, the word "tobacco" in this use is misleading, at best, or an outright lie, at worst. If used under oath, it might constitute perjury. Most typical cigarettes (in the U.S. anyway) contain filler that is so highly-processed and so adulterated with untested, often toxic and cancer-causing non-tobacco ingredients that it is absurd to accept the industry's claim that this is "tobacco". Why DO anti-cig industry activists use the industry's own deceitful marketing terms? In fact, some U.S. cigarettes may contain no tobacco at all but, instead, fake tobacco concocted in patented ways from all sorts of industrial waste cellulose.

It is unlikely to be by accident or incompetence that the European Union missed three important steps before any thoughts of an ad ban were considered:

1) Officials failed to first ban any and all untested non-tobacco ingredients, and to certainly have banned ingredients that are known to be health-damaging. Studies show high levels of dioxin in cigarette smoke. It's not from tobacco or any plant. It's in cigs from chlorine pesticide residues, chlorine-bleached paper, pesticide-contaminated non-tobacco agricultural additives, other additives, and contaminated waste cellulose used to make fake tobacco.
There's also radiation in cigs, from certain phosphate tobacco fertilizers. NONE of the non-tobacco ingredients have been tested for safety and some are known to be toxic or cancer-causing...or fire-starting. No bans on all this?

2) They neglected to even present studies of tobacco (the supposed focus of the ban), without the questionable and/or deadly adulterants, before making health allegations about the plant. Banning tobacco ads for the crimes of Highly Adulterated Smoking Products is as preposterous and illegitimate as it would have been to ban wine because the Borgias used poisoned wine to murder their enemies.

3) And they never banned FRAUDULENT ads that permitted unwitting consumers to believe that the products were just tobacco. Despite motherly "warnings", people accept the natural risks of "sinful" tobacco, and people believed that government officials, with some human compassion, would never permit secret deadly toxins and carcinogens to contaminate the products and so inevitably, grievously poison so many unwitting people.

By banning ads, and indoor smoking, officials are blaming others for their own failure to protect consumers from the effects of a horrific list of dangerous, but "legal", non-tobacco cigarette ingredients.

By banning ads and smoking, officials are protecting big oil and pharmaceuticals, the makers of so many tobacco pesticides. They are protecting the chlorine industries. They are protecting the cigarette manufacturers from charges that go far beyond just selling natural plant products. They are protecting the paper and pulp industry, the agricultural businesses that supply ingredients, the pharmaceuticals (again) that supply other ingredients (e.g. artificial sweeteners, flavorings, preservatives, etc.) and, of course, all of their insurers and investors.

Perhaps the biggest giveaway that this is a massive fraud, to cover up what some might describe as mass-murder, is that even though over 100 countries have signed the POPs Treaty, in Stockholm, to globally phase out dioxins and 11 other of the worst Persistent Organic Pollutants, dioxin is STILL permitted in smoke from chlorine-contaminated cigarettes!! Why? protect the cigarette makers and the chlorine interests from serious liabilities. In fact, an amazing EIGHT of the "Dirty Dozen" POPs are, or have been tobacco pesticides/cigarette contaminants... noting that dioxin overlaps as it comes from burning any residues of chlorine pesticides.

Whenever the word "tobacco" appears, it must be challenged and qualified. It is VITAL to law and public health to know if the issue is tobacco itself...or if, on the other hand, it is chlorine-contaminated, radioactive (!), multi-ingredient tobacco-like smoking material. It is also helpful to note that many of the diseases said to be "smoking-related" (smoking of WHAT?) are known already to be symptoms of dioxin exposures...yet tobacco itself hasn't been yet studied for such things. It is just a bit premature, then, to indict tobacco for anything. It is far past time, however, to ban dioxins in cigarette smoke, and to get to the business of compensating victims...and indicting the perpetrators.

If there is to be a must be on public officials who have economic conflicts-of-interest with any of the businesses that officials are duty-bound to regulate. The large numbers of those sickened and killed by typical highly-contaminated cigarettes..."spiked tobacco", to use John le Carré's phrase...represent clear, undeniable evidence that Business-Über-Alles governing is enormously dangerous and intolerable. It has, at best, only secondary interests in life of any kind.

Incidentally...the U.S. and Britain are planning to invade Iraq for the sake of getting control of more oil for...among other things...petroleum-based tobacco pesticides! No Blood for Tobacco Pesticides!

An excellent site has material and links relating to this issue.
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.