Weird Happenings in the USA Regarding Cig Packets

Readers might know that the constitution of the USA is a bit peculiar – it interprets “Freedom of Speech” to also have the opposite effect, “Freedom not to speak”. This has been interpreted to mean that no person is obliged to condemn himself. A person may confess if he wishes to do so, but he cannot be obliged to confess. This idea also applies to companies. They are not obliged to condemn themselves.

By extension, it has been understood in the USA that manufacturers of goods which might be considered dangerous can be obliged to mark these goods as dangerous, provided that there is scientific evidence that they are dangerous. Of course, they can voluntarily mark their goods as dangerous.

It seems that tobacco companies have agreed to make statements, which will be on the face of a cig packet, or will be in the form of an insert in the packet, admitting that smoking is dangerous. Here is the link:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-01-10/deal-reached-on-tobacco-firm-corrective-statements

[Thanks to whoever spotted it – it is late, and I forget]

There are examples of the statements, but there is no certainly that the examples are real. They might be concocted by either the reporter or by TC. That is, they might be wish-think. Here are a couple of examples:

“<i>Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and coronary heart disease in adults who do not smoke.”

“Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, severe asthma, and reduced lung function.”

“There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.</i>”

 

The above examples are crazy since the idea of SHS danger is comparatively new and there still is not the slightest bit of certainty about it. In fact, as we have seen recently, the best studies indicate no danger from SHS to speak of.

I rather suspect that the ‘warnings’ will be much the same as we in the UK are already subjected to, eg, “Fumar Matar” (I only buy fags in Spain at this time) By the way, note that there is no mention of disgusting, filthy, stinking pictures of obscene diseases, specially designed to deform the minds of children. I wonder – would these pictures of obscene diseases be allowed on children’s TV programmes? I doubt it, somehow.

Scene on “Playschool”:

“Look, children, how nasty diseases are caused by tobacco, alcohol, sugar and salt. Oh, and also caused by not running about madly. But it is all right to go into the cabinet under the sink and drink the bleach. That is perfectly safe.”

I hope that my point is obvious. It is, “How will a child know the difference between the minute possibility of slight harm and the certainty of grave danger?”

I would therefore say that any attempt to ‘educate’ children about the ‘danger’ of tobacco smoke MUST only take place AFTER the real dangers of stuff like bleach has been drilled into them. Also, it must be explained that the danger of SHS is as nothing compared with the danger of drinking bleach.

——-

In the above, we see the FRAUD of tobacco control. It lies in comparative risks. Aka, RELATIVE RISKS. TC has been trying to elevate the ‘relative risk’ of SHS to children to the same status as drinking bleach.

It must be stopped.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Weird Happenings in the USA Regarding Cig Packets”

  1. Samuel Says:

    There are factual truths and political truths.

    Factual truths are proved through scientific methods. They represent the best understanding and interpretation of reality available in the present and are always subject to revision due to the discovery of new information or a new interpretation of old facts.

    Political truths are products of legislation. They do not require facts or proofs and are rarely subject to revision. Since legislation and legislators are much the same everywhere (corrupt and completely unnecessary) the process is probably almost identical in the UK to what passes in the US.

    Tiring of lawsuits where the attacking party needed to present information and prove their claims every time the ‘defenders of children’ ran around their opponents and purchased legislation that defined, for legal purposes, things such as tobacco as toxic poisons. The effect is to find any purveyor of tobacco criminally guilty without a trial because what they deliver to willing customers has been “proven” through legislative fiat to be a poison. The language used in California is anything “known to the State of California” to be, in some way, dangerous or toxic or cancer causing, etc. Because a thing is “known to the State of California” to do or not do something no person or company may defend themselves in court with any facts or evidence to the contrary. Proof of guilt of this nature is part of how tobacco companies have been forced to cooperate with the State in their own persecution.

    It helps that they benefit financially by the State limiting competition by raising enormous barriers to entering the market. Tobacco companies will never fight the demonization of their businesses or products so long as they remain legal. Their profits are protected from competitors and their prices are guaranteed.

    • Junican Says:

      I’m very well aware of that Samuel. As I said in a blog a few days ago, those members of parliament who favour and vote for smoking bans seem to do so on the basis of emotions rather than facts. For example, there was never any significant evidence that bar workers suffered as a result of SHS; the so-called evidence was projections by computer models. Only now is the absence of evidence, as a result of prospective studies rather than questionnaires, being observed. The prospective studies have shown negligible effect among people who live with SHS an awful lot (spouses of smokers). If spouses are not affected, why should bar staff be so when their exposure is much less?
      The reason that the Zealots are going hell for leather for legislation is precisely because it is very hard to have statute law repealed.

  2. Rose Says:

    There are examples of the statements, but there is no certainly that the examples are real. They might be concocted by either the reporter or by TC

    Incase you miss it on Frank’s blog.

    American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

    Text of Corrective Statements – 2014
    http://www.acscan.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Text-of-corrective-statements-Jan-2014.pdf

    The reporter didn’t concoct those statements,

    The statements in all the papers are the same ones that Dr Siegel posted in 2012 as being approved by Judge Kessler, with the exception of the 3,000 deaths which has now been amended to 38,000 to include all deaths attributed to passive smoking, the 3,000 were said to be lung cancer alone.

  3. beobrigitte Says:

    Apart from Big Tobacco re-gaining advertising space, Rose made a very good point:

    “Thank goodness anti-tobacco warned us never to believe a word that those wicked tobacco companies say.”

    • Junican Says:

      Yeh – don’t believe a word tobacco companies say. LoL.

      But I like “…Big Tobacco re-gaining advertising space”. I had not thought of that even though I have been saying for ages that Tobacco Control, via all the notices around hospital and all the ‘No Smoking’ notices on every business door, are doing a wonderful job of advertising smoking. Every time I see one of these notices, I fancy a fag! The phrase “All publicity is good publicity” has never been so true. Tobacco Companies should grasp the opportunity to post huge billboard adverts everywhere they can.
      The idea that such statements as Rose has described could be written on packets is laughable, and the idea of inserts is similarly laughable. Who will actually read them?

  4. Legally mandated lies. | underdogs bite upwards Says:

    […] Frank and Junican have picked up on Rose’s findings of the new legal ruling in that rebel colony called […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: