Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Poll Analyses
Share on Facebook 37 Share on Twitter 2 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 1/22/12

Vote for Bans on Corporate Crimes.

By       (Page 2 of 2 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page. (View How Many People Read This)   2 comments
Author 10030
Message John Jonik

BAN- Government tax-funded subsidies for "research and development" to pharmaceuticals that manufacture or formerly manufactured and supply(ied) tobacco pesticides or cigarette additives.   This applies to the likes of Bayer, BASF, Rhone Poulenc, Zeneca, Ciba-Geigy, Miles labs, Syngenta, Abbott labs, and so forth. It is wrong to think of Big Cig as only about cigarette manufacturers.   It's much bigger.

BAN- Smoking products that have no labeling of, or warnings about, the non-tobacco ingredients.

BAN- Judges, in "smoking" cases, who may have economic links to parts of the cigarette industry such as pesticides, chlorine, paper, fertilizers, agricultural products, pharmaceuticals that make tobacco pesticides and additives, pharmaceuticals that compete with tobacco for nicotine delivery, or any of their insurers or investors.

BAN- Judges, in "smoking" cases, who have religious bias against "sinful" smoking.

BAN- Judges in those cases who believe that they or relatives or friends have been sickened or killed by tobacco or "smoking".

BAN- The use, under oath or in law, of the term "tobacco" when it is not qualified by noting if it is A) plain tobacco, B) highly adulterated, pesticide-contaminated, dioxin delivering, radiation-contaminated, multi-ingredient reconstituted "tobacco", or C) fake tobacco.

BAN-   Insufficient warnings that use terms like "smoking" which means nothing without clarity about what, exactly, is being smoked.

BAN- The arrest or penalizing of anyone for violating "tobacco" laws without evidence that the smoke is indeed smoke from just tobacco. or that a victim is harmed or imminently endangered by that tobacco smoke.  

BAN- For-profit heath insurers that invest billions in cigarette manufacturing and cigarette ingredient suppliers from any involvement in public health systems or publicly-licensed hospitals, clinics, or physicians.  

BAN- Such insurers having any part in the government-mandated "Affordable Health Care Act".     

BAN-   Any "tobacco settlement" money going to parts of the cigarette industry such as pharms that make tobacco pesticides or cigarette additives, food businesses that supply crop products to cigarette makers, chlorine-using industries or their PR affiliates, advertisers that have promoted fraudulently-described "tobacco" products, and insurers that invest in parts of the industry.

BAN-   Any "tobacco settlement" money coming from cigarette price hikes on customers and not from cigarette CEOS, managers, and their insurers-investors.

It's time to put such ban questions on ballots, and to request that our sworn and paid public officials endorse such bans.     Who'd vote to allow secret dioxins or radiation in cigarette smoke, for instance?       Just to question officials, as publicly as possible, can do the trick.  

Smoke must not get in the eyes of anti-pesticide activists, and those concerned about chlorine-dioxin, or heath insurer domination of our health system, or corporate corruption of government, or corporate corruption of medicine and science, or corporate corruption of public media, and so forth.   This is far more about those all-important problems than just about "smoking", "pleasant dining",  and "smelly bars".  

 References at

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).


Rate It | View Ratings

John Jonik Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Long time activist in areas relating to industrial toxics, media content and control, death penalty, Mumia Abu-Jamal, hemp prohibition, civil rights, insurance influence in public governing, religious influence in public governing, unsafe foods, (more...)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Health Care Cartoons

"Fire Safe" Means Not Fire Safe

Health Care Cartoons II

How The Left Serves the Corporatocracy

Pesticide Industry War On Mothers

FDA To Promote Increased Smoking

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: