A friend of mine commented on facebook about public smoking bans. I just wanted to share this with everyone so that you have ammunition for all of your republican/democrat friends who may or may not realize this:
At the very bottom of this article are the list of the 599 additives and chemicals that are KNOWN poisons in cigarettes. If there wasn't such a serious debate over the legality of modern day cigarettes and your health, there wouldn't be such an effort to ban cigarettes in public places. What the smokers NEED to understand is that this is not so much about people telling you what you can do, it is about people telling you what you can not do in public places regarding hazardous health related products that you force others to engage in. who is asking who to engage in activity they don't want to partake in? it is a serious question. Travelers have the right not to go out to places that allow smoking right? Isn't it also true for the opposite that travelers have the right to wait and smoke where it is allowed? Aren't both kind of right? Well, interestingly, what if the debate is about something else...
I wouldn't be so inclined to comment if I didn't already believe in this cause, but I do. In fact, I talk about it all the time on my radio show and in my presentations. It is one I am VERY familiar with and well researched on. you ready? Here it is:
I wanted to share this fun fact. Cigarette companies spend many hundreds of millions of dollars on multiple lobbyist groups to make sure they are not regulated by the FDA, like all others in this society. I am not going to share my politics on smoking bans, but I will tell you this, if I started selling painter masks on the market and these masks had known carcinogens like Acetone - also found in finger nail polish remover, Ammonia - used in household cleaning compounds, Arsenic - commonly used in rat poison. Butane - key ingredient in lighter fluid, Cadmium, etc, etc, etc through the 600 more in alphabetical order that you find in cigarettes... Well if these were in any small trace amount in my painter masks I was selling, my company would be shut down. I would be held accountable, fines imposed and potential charges of pre-meditated mass murder.
Do you know why the FDA does not regulate cigarettes? because if they did, it would HAVE to be disclosed a complete list of ingredients. If that happened, it would be ILLEGAL to sell 99% of all cigarettes on the market. It is pre-meditated mass murder, no exceptions. Every single cigarette company already knows this, that is why they spend that money on lobbyists to ensure that they are not regulated. god forbid they have to sell pure tobacco cigarettes, without additives and less profit or addiction...
My point is this: Why is it that all people in society of the United States are forced to be regulated by the government for all products sold on the market that your body may absorb but cigarettes are exempt. All you folks here about government control in our lives, the whole debate is that they are exempt from the ALREADY in place government regulation that you and I are forced to experience.
Tobacco has tar and you still experience inhaling carbon monoxide which kills people in their homes every year just because you can not smell carbon monoxide (not to be confused with carbon dioixide). Any smoking is hazardous to your health, you always risk it. You were not meant to inhale water just like your lungs were not meant to inhale smoke. We breathe air, that is the natural state. if you alter that behavior, just like your nutrition or exercise, expect health problems. I don't believe in telling people they don't have a right to engage in unhealthy or risky behavior, but I DO believe in the idea that people have a right to be informed of that, legally and morally. Cigarette companies spend millions of dollars to prevent this from happening. The Surgeon general warning is NOT from the FDA.
When you look on the box of cigarettes, there are NO ingredients. Do you know why this is? Because the FDA believes that cigarettes are not "ingested" but just smoked. Do you want to know how asinine this is? "Ingested" has nothing to do with it. First of all, smoking IS ingesting. second of all, we force ALL make up and shampoo companies to disclose the ingredients on their products and undergo intense testing for toxic chemicals just for products that go "ON" your body. You know why, because your skin absorbs chemicals. LET ALONE SMOKING SOMETHING, which goes INTO your bloodstream and circulatory and respiratory system, AS WELL, as your digestive system.
NOT ONLY are objections justified about a right to force people to obey public smoking ban laws but that is protected on the ideology of American politics but all you nay-sayers are ALSO correct about your community at the same time and not wanting government control in your life. But ALL of you need to understand that cigarette companies are APART of the problem. I don't give 2 shits if people smoke. I don't think cigarettes should be illegal. But I do think that ALL CORPORATIONS should be required to experience the same level of bullshit that the rest of us have to go through, and that includes the REALITY that if I am forced to be regulated by the FDA, they should be too.
Corporations should not have the right to buy their way out of the system to conduct CRIMINAL activity of selling products that include cancer, but not only, they include KNOWN poisons. If I was a nurse and I put a small amount of cyanide in someone's soup everyday, I would go to fu**ing prison. Do you get this? Cigarette companies are adding additives that have NOTHING to do with preservation (preservatives) and they have nothing to do with flavor. Cigarette companies have added black powder and incendiaries in the paper to ensure the cigarette relights every now and then SO LONG as you smoke it AND they also have chemicals in the paper to make sure the cigarette goes out if not smoked after a period of time. Along with that are other additives.
If I add nicotine into my products because I paid scientists millions of dollars to find a chemical that would ENSURE that people become addicted to my product, that would be completely legal under our law. However, it should be disclosed, according to the regulations of drugs by the FDA. The reason that cigarettes are exempt is because of the lobbying, but the real reason is because if they were ever forced to be regulated for their drug, and YES IT IS A DAMN DRUG GET OVER YOURSELF, if they were forced to be regulated, everyone pay attention now, it would be LEGALLY disclosed that the cigarette companies are KNOWINGLY adding chemicals and drugs to their products that also kill you over time. Like the known 600 poisons. If I add a known poison in small doses to my product ON TOP of a drug that makes you addicted to my product, how is this not premeditated mass murder?
Well, it is. No ifs, and's or buts about it. No excuses everybody. Enough is enough. I say this because I want to protect people's right to smoke cigarettes, but I think they should have the legal right to be told the truth and cigarette companies SHOULD NOT be allowed to add any drug without regulations by the drug administration and cigarette companies should NEVER be allowed to add known poisons, toxins and carcinogens.
AND, if a community or state wants to ban the use of a drug in public places where sovereignty laws are forced to be affected by regulation by the masses, well that is up to that state or community. THIS IS LIMITED GOVERNMENT. If you have a problem with this and think this is government oppression, you are not a libertarian or conservative. You are an anarchist. Sorry, just my opinion here.
By the way, I am friends with many anarchists who agree that cigarette companies should not have the right to sell death legally.
This debate about public smoking in my opinion is absolutely legit. Most activists on both sides of the debate, as well as myself, do not want known toxins and poisons to be released in my environment in public places where I attend. Just as you have the right to go anywhere where smoking is not taking place, you also have the right to go anywhere where smoking is embraced. It works both ways. Limited government means that if a big corporation is dumping chemicals into the public water supply, we can regulate them and go after them and tell them NOT to do it, just as we have that right, as a community under the republic, to do with individuals who do the same crime. Until cigarettes are just plain tobacco, Sorry, but until then, I agree with smoking ban laws. This is a matter of serious debate.
The whole angle with public smoking bans is that if cigarette companies know that they can't have the FDA regulate them because they would be forced to disclose the illegality of their products, which is why they spend the money with lobbyists, then we can all agree that even though cigarettes are legal, that doesn't mean they are OK to push in people's faces. They are borderline illegal in any system that would treat cigarettes with the same scrutiny all other products on the market have to go through and it is highly debatable if people have the right to force others to engage in secondary smoke, which there is absolutely no debate has unhealthy, risky or dangerous side effects. Private property laws should always be respected so I believe that public smoking bans have NO place to tell private establishments what to do, but public smoking bans in public places and most businesses is the gray zone.
Who is being unrealistic in the scenario, that is for your community and judges to decide. do smokers have a right to make others engage in the risky health environment or do the non smokers have the right to tell smokers to do it in private places. There is a BIG difference between telling someone what to engage in and asking someone to refrain from behavior around others. No one is telling smokers they can't smoke, they are saying you can't force others to tolerate your behavior if it affects their health. And as such, smokers asking non smokers to deal with it are actually making the non smokers engage in behavior they don't want to partake in. The difference is there. You can't expect people to do what you want them to do, but you can ask them to respect not doing something if it should involve another person's consent... Smokers don't need other people's consent to smoke, however they might need it to smoke next to someone. It is very realistic, polite and just fair to see public smoking ban laws as not evasive into your life. To compare government tyranny over your life with smoking ban laws is an extreme and borderline insulting stretch of the imagination, in my opinion.
Here is a list of the 599 additives and chemicals that are KNOWN poisons in cigarettes:
http://www.newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/3887/The-List-of-599-Additives-in-Cigarettes.aspx