PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

Smoke Bans: Steps to Big Insurance Takeover
by Watchdog Sunday, Mar. 09, 2008 at 6:38 PM

All bad laws come with smily faces and angel wings...for "good causes". The Smoke Ban laws are some of the worst, no matter how wholesome they are said to be. With PA legislature set to act on some new Prohibition, it's time to ask some basic questions.

Smoke Bans Part of Big Insurance Takeover

This is reference to a small bit of a Minnesota Smoke Ban law, but it applies generally to all others, indluding Philadelphia's, and to the one that may come down on the whole state. Harrisburg hearings start March 10 or so. This whole prohibitionary deal is NOT wholesome, as it is painted. It's as fake as most of the "tobacco products" on the market.
Visit http://fauxbacco.blogspot.com and http://ktc.com/~bdrake for plenty.
PS: Also Google up something like "Minnesota smoking performances" for the stories of the bar owners' rebellion out there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Minnesota Statute reads, in part:

Subd. 9. Cigarette. "Cigarette" means any product that contains
nicotine, is intended to be burned or heated under ordinary
conditions of use, and consists of or contains (1) any roll of
tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing
tobacco; or (2) tobacco, in any form, that is functional in the
product, which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used
in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered
to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette; or (3) any roll of
tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of
its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its
packaging or labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by,
consumers as a cigarette described in clause (1) of this definition.
The term "cigarette" includes "roll-your-own."

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H3818.0.html&session=ls85

1) It seems that herbal cigarettes are legal...because they don't
contain nicotine. Pipes must be addressed elsewhere?

2) There hasn't been any evidence presented that nicotine can harm
workers in an indoor situation, or anywhere. Nicotine is an
ingredient in all sorts of patented synthetic nicotine delivery
products, a situation that would not exist if nicotine was harmful.
About the only complaint officials might come up with is that
nicotine (like caffeine) causes withdrawal symptoms, "addiction".
But I'm not sure if any nicotine survives being burned in a cigarette
to "addict" second hand smokers to second hand smoke. I never heard
of "second hand nicotine".

3) Since many cigarettes, in the lower end brands, may contain
absolutely no tobacco but, instead, "tobacco substitute material" (as
the Patent Office calls it) made from paper, tree pulp, and all sorts
of agricultural waste cellulose, and since no evidence has been
presented about any health effects from such products, there is no
justification to prohibit their use despite their added measured dose
of nicotine. Note that some cigarette brands say nothing about
being made from tobacco on packaging or ads. The smoke-
prohibitionists don't even know what they are prohibiting! If they
know, they ain't telling. If there is no tobacco, it is impossible
to get the dreaded target of the laws, "environmental tobacco smoke",
from that.
Officials, especially the "wholesome" smoking foes, DO NOT want to
open up this can of worms because it is THEY who permitted this fraud
for perhaps decades, who failed to even ASK politely for tests of
such trash, who did nothing to demand ingredient labeling, and who
unconscionably failed to warn their duped constituents. Such
officials perpetuate the cig industry lie that cigarettes are
automatically tobacco.
(Ironically, the fake tobacco smokes may be safer than the ones
with tobacco because tobacco is more heavilly contaminated with
pesticides than all but a few other crops. The waste cellulose used
to make fake tobacco cigs may be less pesticide intensive, but it's
cerainly not organic.)

4) The arbitrariness is glaring. If this is about some real danger
or threat or harm, it is capricious and unjust and even harmful to
citizens that any exemptions exist anywhere. Imagine exemptions
given for other things, truly harmful things...like shooting guns,
sewage and rats in eating establishments, lack of fire exits and
sprinklers, crumbling stairs and floors, etc. Any exemption is
essentially an admission by officials that even they know that if
there is any health threat from "second hand smoke", it is so minimal
as to be of no Public Interest that could justify prohibitions.

It appears that some reason besides protecting health is behind the
ban laws. Whatever reason, it apparently must be kept secret because
that reason would not justify bans or be accepted by the public. What
could other reasons be? Hmmm....

Some possibilities:
* Eliminating public domain products that interfere with sales of
patented, synthetic alternatives? (Identical to what was done,
disastrously, to hemp/cannabis with "Reefer Madness".)
* Creating a distraction from corporate/government-level
crimes...such as the contamination of cigs with toxic/carcinogenic
industrial substances?
* Creating another fracturing us-versus-them element in society to,
at all costs, prevent unity that might effectively fight
corporate/gov't misdeeds?
* Putting bars out of business as much as possible to please private
insurance firms and religious fundamentlists?
* So that officials who have been responsible for deadly cigarette
adulteration and hosts of other product health hazards and
environmental pollution and work safety law violations, etc., can
look like "heroic" "concerned" "health conscious" consumer champions?
* To protect the chlorine industries from exposure and legal
consequences re/ the chlorine adulterants of cigs and the dioxins in
the smoke.
* By scapegoating tobacco, to protect private insurers from the
liabilities for that chlorine, AND to cut profit losses from having
to treat the victims affected by what may be products made by those
insurers' own investment properties?

It is coincidence that this no-smoke crusade is happening now.
Unless the public and Single Payer activists succede in stopping
things, the country might soon face being FORCED to patronize private
insurers...yes...even the ones that invest many millions in (and are
therefore part owners of) cigarette firms! Those insurers DO NOT
want to have to provide profit-diluting health care...and SO...we are
deluged with laws (no smoking, seat-belts, etc), often enforced by
armed police, requiring us people to protect ourselves.
* Cig firms are NOT asked or required to get the health damaging
non-tobacco stuff out of cigs, or even to WARN about it.
* Auto makers are NOT required to reduce health damaging emissions
to levels that current technology can reach.
* Adequate funding for public transit and industrial rail is not
forthcoming despite all the exhaust emissions and accidents on
highways.
* Alternative, clean energy is almost ignored thus letting the
toxic coal industry continue to affect all of our lungs. (If you get
sick from this, and just happen to smoke, guess what will be blamed.)
* To benefit insurer investments in corporate agriculture, and
pesticides and certain fertilizers and the pharms that make so many
food (and cig) additives, there are no subsidies given to Organic
Agriculture despite indisputable health benefits.
* Agricultural hemp is not re-legalized to, for just one thing,
eliminate any need for health-damaging pesticides across great swaths
of the country's farmlands.

And on and on. Bar owners and others are to be sacrificed so that
all the horrific situations stated above can continue, business as
usual. The Mafia must look upon all this with awe and envy. Anti
smoking officials are not protecting workers' health (as if they care
about that anywhere else) but are protecing Big Insurance and the
cartel of related industries.

(PS: How many workers, roughly, clammored for laws that burden
themselves, and fellow workers, with threats of job loss, fines and
arrest? The major forces doing the clammoring are the under-the-
radar parts of the extended cigarette cartel.)

add your comments