Calling every cigarette on Earth "tobacco" is so easy, though doing so displays inappropriate colloquialism, at best, or ignorance, lying, perjury, or consumer fraud.A "clean air" activist, or one who thinks they are Anti Corporate Crime, may be reluctant to remotely appear to be defending "evil" tobacco but there is a big distinction between Mother Nature's tobacco plant, and "Big Tobacco"...as the industry likes to be called.
Do you think you or a friend or relative bought and got sick from tobacco?Think that your hair or drapes got smelly from tobacco smoke? How do you know it was tobacco or tobacco smoke? You'd have to trust the notoriously deceitful cigarette industry, and complicit government and mainstream media functionaries, to believe it was ...not that "alternative" media is much better about this.
Listed below are 47 US Patents for processes to make Fake Tobacco, designed to "simulate tobacco" (to lie by appearances), though several patents are simply intended to provide a "nicer", nicotine-free, smoking product. No matter, all of this non-tobacco stuff is covered in "anti-tobacco"-"anti-smoking" laws. Even tobacco-free Electronic Cigarettes, dispensing nicotine with water vapor, not smoke, are covered under many "no smoking" laws.
The meanings of some words are being demolished, most troublingly, in medicine, science, and law.That might be of concern even to the most innocent "clean air" activist anti-smokers.The US Patent Office has taken upon itself to change the definition of "tobacco" to mean anything, like the stuff covered in these patents, including wood pulp, corncobs, and sagebrush, for starters. Here's this from the US Patent Office site for Tobacco Substitute Material:
>> "The word "tobacco", as used in this class, is considered generic to any material which may be smoked or may be substituted for real tobacco."<<
And an SUV is a horse. As Humpty Dumpty said in "Alice in Wonderland", "'When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'"
A lawyer, defending a tobacco ban violator at a "smoking" hearing, might (should) ask "How do you know my client was smoking tobacco or allowing tobacco smoking, or that the smoke was Environmental Tobacco Smoke?"What would the prosecution answer? After all, the laws are based on (faulty) studies of tobacco smoke specifically. It is troubling that modern science, medicine and law presumes (or pretends) that if it looks, smells, tastes and feels like a "tobacco product", it is tobacco, without quotes or qualification. Not even air quotes or a wink-wink.
The deceit about "tobacco" serves the interests of the cigarette industry, their many ingredient suppliers (including the Dows, DuPonts, Bayers, BASFs, Rhone Poulencs, etc., makers of some 450 pesticides registered for tobacco use), all their insurers and investors, and the sold-out officials (globally) who have enabled, protected and benefited from that cartel for decades.
"Anti-tobacco" activists distract by blaming the victims for the personal behavior of smoking, and by scapegoating the so-far unstudied natural, public domain, tobacco plant.Even Greens are Anti Green in this area. The effect, if not the goal, is to aid and abet the cigarette cartel's evasion of astronomical liabilities and penalties for not just whatever harms are caused to smokers by the fake tobacco, or the fraud, but for the effects of the many pesticide residues, dioxins from chlorine contaminants, radiation from certain fertilizers, burn accelerants, kid-attracting goodies, any of over 1000 untested, often toxic non-tobacco additives, and for the psychopathic failure to warn about any of it.
A lawyer defending a smoke ban violator needs to ask the prosecution, "When you say "tobacco', do you mean Fake Tobacco, or do you mean the actual plant, Nicotinia Tabaccum?"Then, "Have any studies of smoke from unadulterated Nicotinia Tabaccum been provided to show a Public Interest justification for prohibitionary laws?"
Our regulatory [sic] system provides or demands no studies of the effects of smoking coffee bean hulls, popped corn, wood pulp, eucalyptus leaves or any of the non-tobacco, likely non-organic, constituents of so-called "tobacco products".For that matter, no studies of certifiably plain tobacco have been presented either...except some ancient stuff about irritation from overuse. Tobacco is being "convicted", so to speak, without a trial. We don't know what we're talking, or legislating, about.
If the US Patent Office has deemed that any cigarette stuffing, tobacco or not, can be called "tobacco", why don't cigarette makers simply label the products as "containing tobacco"?If it's in a cigarette, "pasture pies" or coal mining sludge can be called "tobacco". A lot of brands say nothing on labels about what's in the product.We are to presume a brand is tobacco because it looks,smells, and tastes like tobacco, is sold in a "tobacco shop", hit with "tobacco taxes", and banned under "tobacco laws". Smokers, non-smokers, and anti-smoking activists have fallen for that.
The Dark Ages are not quite over yet.
If anything is allowed in a cigarette, and can be called "tobacco", doesn't this provide a solution for nuclear waste disposal?Blend the rad waste with some paper and wood chips, color it nicely, give it some aroma additives, shoot it up with a measured dose of nicotine and, viola!..."tobacco". If people, believing and told it's just tobacco, get sick or die from that...well... they were warned about "the harms of smoking".
The "Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids" organization has not acknowledged that any number of kids who smoke, or are exposed to 2nd hand smoke, may already be tobacco-free....an irony that has not amused or interested TFK. This "war" must remain focused on tobacco plants...on Mother Nature...and avoid the corporate crime and government corruption areas.It is "too big" to prosecute. Look how big it is.It's Global...wherever big oil-pesticides-chlorine-ag biz-"tobacco"-Wall Street-Pharms, etc have influence. It's understandable that New York Mayor Bloomberg (Wall Street Uber Alles) opposes the behavior of victims, but not the behavior of those responsible for typical smoking concoctions.
It is ironic that, since tobacco is the Sixth Most Pesticide-Intensive crop, it may be quite safer to smoke the fake stuff even though none of that is likely organic.Ah, but the notion of a Safer Cigarette is anathema to the establishment because that would open the Pandora's Box about maximally deadly cigarettes....the typical Pesticide Pegs, Dioxin Dowels, and Radiation Rods. Why liability lawyers don't look into this is a question.Fear?...of what? What about fear of depending on such a defunct, homicidal regulatory system?