EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Cigarette
And a woman is only a woman, But a good cigar is a smoke.
- Rudyard Kipling, The Betrothed, A poem inspired by an 1885 Breach of Promise case in which the plaintiff reportedly said: "You must choose between me and your cigar."
It is not often I feel compelled to offer an apology to a corporation but one is required this week. Last week, in poking fun at Merck and Schering-Plough for having failed to disclose the results of their unfavorable tests of Vytorin and Zetia, I made fun of Phillip Morris for an ad that appeared in a 1943 issue of The Saturday Evening Post. The ad touted the virtues of its cigarettes and their endorsement by leading doctors. In describing the ad it might seem to some that I was mocking Phillip Morris and that was not my intention. I have nothing but admiration for the company and had an article in the Wall Street Journal appeared just a few days earlier the column would have been written differently. The WSJ article described all the things Phillip Morris International, (PMI) is doing to make cigarette smoking more attractive in those countries that have not yet concluded they are harmful to a smoker's health.
One of the cleverest ideas devised by Phillip Morris addresses the undeniably difficult problem posed for smokers in those countries where cigarette smoking though not frowned upon, is nonetheless not permitted with the confines of public buildings, thus forcing smokers to sneak outdoors to enjoy their pleasures. To help those people, Phillip Morris has come up with a cigarette that is the opposite of the 1940's version of Pall Mall cigarette. That cigarette bragged that it was 20% longer than other cigarettes and, therefore, healthier because, as its commercial said: "Pall Mall's greater length, filters the smoke on the way to your throat." No one ever pointed out to the maker that once the first half-inch had been smoked the remaining length was the same as that of its competitors and the filtering advantage ceased to exist. That omission was not important, however, since nothing about cigarette advertising is designed to appeal to reason.
The cigarette that is the opposite of the 1940's Pall Mall is called Phillip Morris's "Marlboro Intense." It is one-half inch shorter than ordinary cigarettes but, according to its advertising, packs the same carcinogenic punch (my words-not Phillip Morris's) as the longer variety because it is more heavily infused with whatever it is that gives the smoker simultaneously pleasure and cancer. According to news of its advent that cigarette is not only short but a bit fatter than ordinary cigarettes. Its advantage is that its pleasure and toxin can be inhaled in only 7 puffs whereas ordinary cigarettes require 8 or 9 puffs to achieve the same result, a definite benefit for those who, being short on time, are eager to shorten their lives as well by getting the same effect a long cigarette would give them. That is not the only creativity displayed by the company. It has also created the Heatbar, a smoke, but also a pollution-reducing device.
Everyone knows that a by-product of smoking is a pollutant known as "smoke." According to the WSJ the Heatbar looks a bit like an electric toothbrush. The cigarette is inserted into the device and the smoker then inhales. Inhaling causes the device to heat up "delivering a flavored aerosol, without causing any tobacco to burn." It releases 90% less smoke into the atmosphere. Whether it is less harmful to the user is not disclosed in the article and the company's website has distressingly little information about what will surely be a big hit among the environmentally concerned smoking crowd. Although not the sort of device one would expect to see Humphrey Bogart pull out in To have and have not or any other films in which he starred, it hopes to find a place of honor in the smoker's world.
The foregoing is not intended to cast aspersions on PMI and its own corporate site would refute any attempt to do so. Under the rubric "Commitment to Responsibility" on its website, the company says it tracks "whether the company measures up to society's expectations of a major multinational company-and a tobacco company." It says it supports "strong and effective tobacco regulation for both its products and the industry", is "open about the health effects of smoking" and works "to address society's concerns about its products" and supports "minimum age laws" and "youth smoking prevention programs across the globe."
PMI is clearly a conscientious company and one can't fault it for continuing to market the only thing it knows how to make. One can only praise it for its efforts to improve the environment and accommodate its customers who have found themselves caught up in government regulations imposed by people who have never appreciated the pleasures that can be found in a well-timed smoke.
Christopher Brauchli brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu For political commentary see my web page
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

61 Comments so far
Show AllMost intelligent comment so far. Thanks, expatincebu, for putting things into perspective.
#expatincebu February 9th, 2008 7:50 pm
"Let people smoke for god's sake. Yeah, it is bad for you. What do you think all those car exhaust fumes are doing to your lungs? Or how about the effects of all that cell phone radiation? Or how about all the chemicals dumped into agri-business food that you consume on a daily basis?
No. let's all attack tobacco and smokers so people do NOT have to think about all the other HIGHLY TOXIC elements of their everyday lives."
Wow, does anyone have young kids here? Do you care if they start smoking? Close to half a million deaths in the US alone are attributed to smoking-related disease. Recently, it's been shown the younger someone starts smoking, the earlier their lives potentially end, especially women who succumb sooner than men (remember Carol Bernette's daughter who was dead from lung cancer at 39?) Also concerning women and smoking is the health of the fetus during pregnancy. But, hey, as progressives why should we care when there are so many other more important issues to concern ourselves with. After all, unless if affects us directly it's not our problem.
Corporate America is poisoning us and our children in so many ways. As one poster commented, it is in our interest to forbid the PROMOTION of tobacco products in any shape or form. Or should we bring the TV and radio commercials back? Tobacco pedaling is part of a bigger issue of corporate predation, which also leads to pollution of the environment and the destruction of the public health for profit. And isn't it more than a little ironic that Big Tobacco won the right to run anti-smoking commercials that were mandated by the law suit against them? Perhaps we shouldn't be so nonchalant about this issue.
Yeah, once again, lets be REALLY serious here, this is a MAJOR issue.
In comparrison with the methane gas,___ which is going to errupt in the Arctic in a few short years. In comparrison to the millions of deaths of totally innocent people, being caused by DU use by our military. In comparrison to the acidity of our oceans and the continuing loss of the ocean's phytoplankton, which supply our planet with most of our oxygen. In comparrison with those issues, smokin cigarettes is a pimple on an elephant's ass.
It takes less than a minute to read this link, this is REALLY SERIOUS. We are killing those plants with man made pollution at an alarming rate, and it ain't tobacco plants and it ain't tobacclo smoke that's killing them.
http://www.whyplankton.com
Have you read that link, do you ever wonder how it would be, to have to live the rest of your life in an oxygen tent? How about your children or grand kids? This is serious as a massive heart attack every five minutes. For more info, Google 'phytoplankton' and see what's happening to our planet. Then Google arctic methane gas and scroll down to the article titled, "Arctic methane gas, a ticking time bomb".
Then open this link and print it, for it's a lengthy one. __ That is, if you are concerned about really serious issues, __ like cigarette smoke.
http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/background.htm
I do have a young child and I will do everything in my power do discourage him from smoking and that is something I have worked at intentionally because I come from a long line of smokers. I quit cigarettes in 1996. But that doesnt mean I, an adult, dont enjoy smoking and when I smoke it is herbal and organic and I am fortunate to have a job that is not stressful and that makes a big difference too.
As has already said more eloquently than I could improve on:
In comparrison with the methane gas,___ which is going to errupt in the Arctic in a few short years. In comparrison to the millions of deaths of totally innocent people, being caused by DU use by our military. In comparrison to the acidity of our oceans and the continuing loss of the ocean's phytoplankton, which supply our planet with most of our oxygen. In comparrison with those issues, smokin cigarettes is a pimple on an elephant's ass.
Let's all remember this: we're adults. We make choices. If millions choose to smoke in spite of the mountain of risk evidence available, that's their problem, not PMI's. If, on the other hand, we adults choose NOT to smoke, and NOT to eat fast food, and not to buy Exxon gas, then there would be no PMI, or McD's, or Exxon. Either way, it's our choice, not the Fed's. And blaming Big Corp for "brainwashing" is a cop-out in the 21st Century - no one can claim they were "tricked" into believing smoking was in any way "good" at this point in history.
It's like accusing the mortgage industry of "duping" over two million homeowners now facing foreclosure, as if they were all so friggin' stupid they had no idea they couldn't afford the recently unaffordable house and simultaneously simply too ignorant to understand terms like balloon and jumbo. Innocent victims all, eh? Like the poor, dumbasses who keep lighting up after the third Big Mac?
Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.
KEM PATRICK
you just have to laugh at this one.....it's like ice cream that tastes of pizza.........so what??? when far worse atrocities are being committed worldwide, do we really care if people want to give themselves lung cancer?
Most of those externalized costs are imposed consequences. Tobacco and cigarettes are not the same thing. Cigarettes are the bastardization of tobacco. Cigarettes are chemically and genetically polluted tobacco and have radioactive isotopes from the environment.
Kem
What would you like us to do about DU?
If I were a dictator like bush, I would make it illegal to have a company that makes cigarettes to be sold for profit. However I would make it legal to grow for personal consumption. If a person is that committed to smoking that they would grow it themselves then that to me falls under the right to the pursuit of happiness. I would do the same with marijuana.
Throughout history most cultures and civilizations have used mind-altering substances to get a "buzz". Phillip Morris didn't invent smoking tobaco, but their deceptive advertising is abhorrent. Promoting products that are harmful, like cigarettes should be illegal but the right for an adult to choose to alter their mind in the privacy of their home should be protected (and is, as long as it's alcohol). Alcohol is perfectly legal because it is the drug of choice for the rich and powerful. If CEOs were into smoking pot I'm sure it would be decriminalized or made legal.
Re:Tailcap - If you were a dictator like Bush... you would give monetary breaks, tax incentives and maybe out right grants (for some erronious excuse like 'research funds for foreign markets') in return for kick-backs in the form of campaign donations. Then you would crush any attempt by the little guy to grow his own tobacco by labeling him as a sponsor of terrorism, a socialist and unpatriotic while supporting legislation (drawn up by the tobacco companies of course!) outlawing any small business attempt to compete with or interfere with the profits of the multi-national drug pushers (such as Philip-Morris).
For all practical purposes, drugs are 'legal' if you are rich. It is only a crime when you are poor.
We still have cigarette science telling us that our food supply (GMOs) is safe, that Global warming and oil crisis has a technological solution, and that war is the way to find peace.
There are a few things going on. First, mainstream America is too unaware (for many reasons) of the impacts that corporations/government decisions are going to have on their lives. They would rather be entertained by Paris Hilton and video games than think about how to solve problems.
Second, corporations/government lie to get their way. Cigarettes don't cause cancer, and that is enough evidence for most people.
Lastly, as a general concept, we are living at an unsustainable level. Our economy is dependent upon war and unsustainable consumption, while not paying the true cost of doing business like environmental cleanup. Corporate greed motivates this policy.
We need less people, less material goods, and less corporate wars. But we won't do anything about it, not as long as they keep us entertained (distracted).
At this point, since the democratic party is unwilling to address any of these concerns, it is time for a third party.
Man, I gotta go have a smoke.
KEM PATRICK February 9th, 2008 1:34 pm
This is a very "serious" issue.
I agree, I just needed a break from my usual bashing Bend-over_crats.
alexnosal February 9th, 2008 12:07 pm
Are you nuts? Reread what I wrote you idiot, I said it would be okay to grow your own. That doesn't sound like someone in bed with big business does it?
I also said it would ILLEGAL TO SELL TOBACCO FOR PROFIT. Just what are you smoking?
This is a very "serious" issue. My god, we should have a million man march on Washington over this one. I do hope we see at least 200 comments on this artilce before it hits the archives. ___ WOW, cigarettes are bad. If we ALL concentrate on issues as critical as this one, we may not have a depression, or have to worry about the global warming, or the fact that the spread of DU poison is killing our children. This issue almost out does the war and our illegal occupation in Iraq.
Ahhhh, that was nice. Thank you, tobacco farmers, for making this mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, world seem not so bad, 40 minutes at a time. Ahhhh....
"If millions choose to smoke in spite of the mountain of risk evidence available, that's their problem"--frank1569
You'd be right, frank, if it weren't for the phenomenon called "externalites"; i.e. the costs of smoking that get imposed on others. In this case, "others" includes the employers of smokers, the taxpayer (who picks up the healthcare costs of treating uninsured smokers), the smoker's family--particularly those who experience 2nd hand smoke in a closed car--and the environment, because of a)the time it takes for littered cigarette butts to degrade, b)the number of wildfires caused by lighted butts thrown out of car windows. If the smoker were the only one to suffer, yes it would be "his problem". But he's not. We all suffer.
Yep ~WmC~ like I said, this is a very serious issue. BTW, cigatette butts are bio-friendly. It's the filters that bother me. We should all get togther and demand filtered cigs are outlawed. Maybe Dennis could write a bill to have them impeached.
Hi there CoCo. Did you sign up for the October whale hunt? Gotta get rid of them singing whales, they screw up our sub's sonars.
It is illegal to grow tobacco in California, how about that? Why do you think it is illegal? (except for your own use) Why are people paid not to grow tobacco and who are these people? Could it be like cotton farmers getting hemp made illegal? Or, petrochemical winning out as a fuel or peanut oil? It is a hugh example, Doctor's advertising cigarettes to the public, and CEO's ball-face lieing to Congress. What better example is there, if it works for $4.00 a pack tobacco, then it will work for zyprexa and faulty hip replacements, vaccines, DU...it's not addictive you know.
Tobacco isn't genetically modified either, oops.
At least smokers have the good sense to die at an early age. What about fat people, they have all kinds of health problems that raise the cost of medical care for everyone. Chronic health conditions like diabetes cost more to treat over a lifetime than smoking related illness. I think they should exclude fat people from fast-food restaurants and cookie section at all foodmarts.
God help you if you are a fat-smoker.
okay, so anything else everyone has decided they want to control about the individual in the last hour?
Who's got land to grow tobacco? The average Joe n Jodette who will pay $4 perpack? This really does have a revolutionary ring to it. This is as big an American issue as it gets. This has to do with land ownership and the right to grow whatever you want on your own land. Yes Treefrog, it is all about the cotton farmers or The Hearst owned newspapers outlawing hemp when there were still so many virgin forests to go around and slaves/or permanent dirt farmer class to pick cotton. Those jobs are now mechanized so its gotta be someone who can pass a piss test to run those machines.
Let people smoke for god's sake. Yeah, it is bad for you. What do you think all those car exhaust fumes are doing to your lungs? Or how about the effects of all that cell phone radiation? Or how about all the chemicals dumped into agri-business food that you consume on a daily basis?
No. let's all attack tobacco and smokers so people do NOT have to think about all the other HIGHLY TOXIC elements of their everyday lives.
the banks grasshopper. the banks...
Excellent observation O ROE.
Tobacco juice is a home remedy for poisonious snake bite. You don't drink the juice, you spit it on the cut open bite wound after you've sucked the poison out. Tobacco has it's benefits. Tha's why Bil and Monica got along so well, he told her he was snake bit and had a cigar to prove it.
Of course home remedies sometimes don't work real good.
People have smoked since fire was discovered. Remember: fire. good :) It is a way blowing off some stress from the day. This is one more example of corralling our rights. Rounding us up into manageable pods. People are people. People have always smoked and they always will; if not one leaf, then another.
Ok, one last thing. There have been many examples of people living well past their 80's and even into their 100's who also happened to smoke tobacci and what not.
These tobacco companies know people are going to smoke and the real toxic fear should be of the additives that are added to the tobacco. The ADDITITIVES are what are killing and sickening people. Oh that and all the other crap they are spewing out their other end that we are eating, drinking and breathing.
It is utterly hypocritical of the U.S. to be outraged at China's poisoning of our pet food products, thus killing our cherished dogs and cats, when U.S. tobacco profiteers are poisoning the developing world's people, using marketing techniques that are heinous even according to our low standards.
Tobacco is kind a truth serum. It gives some people a reason to marginalize others. It has come to be very telling about American culture.
Tobacco also concentrate elements from unhealthy soil, things like arsenic.
"At least smokers have the good sense to die at an early age. What about fat people, they have all kinds of health problems that raise the cost of medical care for everyone."
Good grief, Treefrog. Your rant reminds me of the essay "A Modest Proposal." which makes a case for using the children of the poor as food for other humans.
In this junk food-inundated society, many dear friends and relatives have passed away, and their diseases were often related to their weight, or eating and drinking the wrong things. They are some of the best people I've ever known, and I miss them every day. Are their deaths some kind of blessing because their illnesses have cost money (mostly for them)?
Also, there are a few people I care about are addicted to cigarettes, and can't manage to quit no matter what, and I worry about them. You say smokers should have the good sense to die off quickly. They would appreciate your good wishes.
I am one of those overweight individuals who you consider such a drain on our economy. If you would just open your eyes and see, you would soon discover the real enemies of health care are not sick people (please don't blame the victim), but the greedy health insurance companies and the federal government; who consistently oppose single payer health care for all. And don't forget corporations that pollute our food, water, and air, thus causing environment damage and diseases of all kinds.
As for me, I have no intention of dying soon, thank you very much. I am losing the weight right now because I AM GOING TO LIVE.
By the way, re Kem Patrick's tobacco antidote for poisonous snake bite:
Why don't you just offer the poisonous snake a cigarette before it has a chance to bite you?
Thank you for allowing me to vent.
Anita
I wasn't try to encourage discrimination, I was responding to what I read here. I was making the point (in a rather blunt way) that any demographic could be marginalized if your applied the same type of thinking. The same conflict of interest in Dr's advocating cigarettes when they will possibly have smokers as patients down the road. The fact that tobacco was once a sacred plant until all the cultural factors that have exploited it, and it is these factors that are not a good thing, not tobacco. I don't live in a vacuum, I know people that struggle with addictions.
Hey, I've got an idea! Why don't we get the tobacco companies to make super-duper, extra-strong cigarettes so we can air drop them by the billions into oil-rich countries so the people there will kill themselves off quietly, so we can go in and take their oil without having to spend so much time and money blowing them to smithareens?
Maybe this sounds stupid, but if I could go back to the 1950's when about a third of the people smoked, as compared to right now, I'd have H.G. Wells put me in his time machine. And I'm a non-smoker! You can give me a skillion reasons why so and so died of lung cancer and everything else related to tobacco smoking, but the people seemed kinder and less irritable then than they are now. And we didn't have as many murders. Peaceman, you are such a screwball, how dare you stick up for smokers! What a jerk!
Some of my best friends and relatives are or were smokers. I never condemned them. The herd mentality troubles me. What do they call it..."political correctness?" Just rambling, folks. When I was in the Army, the saying was: "light em' up if ya' got em. "
By the way, WmC, Kem Patrick said it was the filters that bothered him. The filters are not biodegradable--at least not the filters in the cigarettes smoked by my neighbor. His cigarette butts invariably end up in my yard. I tried composting them, but one year in a compost pile and they're still identifiable.
Right you are, shokulan. You might give your neighbor this web site. http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/cigarettelitterhome.html
I think some have interpreted my comments as an attempt to demonize smokers. Essentially, all I was suggesting is that polluters--of all types--should pay for the full costs of clean-up and/or prevention, rather than imposing those costs on society at large.
In the case of cigarettes, those externalized costs are thought to be $41 per pack.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-11-26-smoking-costs_x.htm
I do not consider this a trivial problem.
I don't consider a pimple on my butt trivial either. But I do consider brain cancer in a five year old child, which was caused from inhaling a microscopic speck of DU a bit more serious.
Hi WmC,
Thanks for the link.
Yes, it would be really great if we had full accounting on the cost of smoking, driving cars, logging, topsoil loss, bananas, chocolate, etc. It would be even better if the full cost of these things were included in the price (gradually, because we'd all go broke just trying to buy food).
As it is, I pay for the dirty air of smoking neighbors, local industries, construction, a nearby coal & garbage burning electric plant, and the occasional dust storms from China with sinus headaches, asthma, bronchitis, weekly visits to two doctors, and the cost of installing and maintaining my air-conditioner (because I dare not keep my windows open) and air filter.
Smoking is a major public health problem that doesn't just affect the smoker. Smokers as parents increase their children's' chances of getting asthma and other illnesses. Now, I'm for anyone partaking in whatever pleasure they wish privately. Further, I think
the govt and employers should stay out of your business outside of work.
I abhor mandatory drug testing as a tool for pre-employment screening, except perhaps where an employee is operating potentially dangerous machinery, but even with that I have reservations, due to the potential of a 'false positive' result. And am also against employers telling smokers they cannot smoke away from work (or trying to). On the other hand, when I go out to eat, or to any public place, I should not have to breathe second-hand smoke. This is really just common sense, is it not?
As far as Kem's comment on DU is concerned, one might ask if there is ANYTHING beneficial in producing and using arms of ANY KIND? The whole military-industrial complex is nothing but a Death Industry, promoting misery and mayhem at almost every turn.
The bigger picture here is that it is unconscionable to promote any known harmful product or industry, and amounts to exploitation of the worst kind when ignorance is seen as an opportunity by corporate (or other) predators to peddle their poisons, whatever those poisons may be.
Isn't it odd that we have a show, "To Catch a Predator," and want to string up 'sexual predators,' while implicitly supporting whole scale decimation and predation of large populations, whether they be our children or other countries. These thing are interrelated folks, and to say we are compassionate in relation to one thing and not another is really just hypocrisy born of ignorance.
Here in MN, they just put the undemocratic band on all smoking everywhere statewide for all places open to the public. They also increased the cost of cigs. by $.75 a pack state fee a couple years, which put the state finally in the black. Yesterday I drove into town and bought beer at the one and only, on and off sale place we have. It was cold baby, with wind chill at -40. Theres 2 guys I know at the bar, both who smoke. The cashier/bartender who waits on me says man it's cold, as I'll be going outside for a smoke. I told her, why don't you revolt, no one is going to say anything or go to the bathroom. She says it would be just my luck for the wrong person to come in. I asked her, what is the fine anyway. She says $300.00. I say, Holy, why don't we try to pitch in and have a smoke night instead of hiring the seldom live music.
I hope she'll still have a job as time goes by, as business has bottomed out. I'm waiting for the people to just say fuck this, as when years ago when I was a going out person and nobody said anything when someone would light up a joint in the back corner.
Okay CHESSGAMES, I agree that war is never productive and wish we'd ban it, make it illegal to produce any weapons of war. That is not going to happen, no matter what I or others wish.
The fact that DU use is already an illegal weapon of war, according to the Geneva conventions the United States agrees with and signed they would adhere to, and the fact that the silent, invisible DU death is now being spread all over the globe is another matter, and for you or any to attempt to nullify or brush off that fact is not sensible to me.
DU ammunition use is a far more serious problem than smoking cigarettes in my mind, and yet I don't have any problem with cigarette smoking being banned in public or work places. Second hand smoke is dangerous for everyone. DU is far more deadly and it annoys and bewilders me that so few seem to care. We have laws now where it's illegal to smoke in a nightclub or a bar, but no one is enforcing the firm law, that the use of DU, a true WMD is illegal and it is killing millions of innocent children.
In New Jersey they placed a huge cigarette tax and the state lost millions. People now go to Delaware or Penna to buy their cigarettes.
Tailcap: If you agree that a person can grow his own tobacco but not purchase it what will happen?
Will you allow smokers to form a cooperative to take turns caring for a commkon crop? Can they hire people to help? Can you join the club by paying a fee, but not work, and get some tobacco too?
Can the club be big enough to become a corporation?
How about just minding your own business and letting people sell whatever anybody wants to buy? We allow the sale of guns which kill other people, why not substances that increase your chance of cancer?
Smokers die before they have to be cared for in their old age. They are not a burden. They also pay a lot of taxes through the extortion commited upon them by the politically correct.
Calvinism, pure ansd simple.
Yea you're right. I was just bored Saturday morning and decided to come up with some bullshit. That's all it was. I did say if I were a dictator which means if I could do whatever I felt like doing. How can you argue with a fantasy?
It's amusing to poke fun at the system but actually coming up with an entire set of laws to govern a country is much more complex. That wasn't my intent. That is complicated and requires a great deal of thought and knowledge that is presently well beyond me.
I do think that a form of government that is set up "for the people by the people" instead of for profit to profit is preferable. I am also sure there are some free market capitalist that would eat me alive for saying that.
I have heard it said Jesus was the first communist and that he was about love and sharing not about getting rich, killing and hoarding. In my opinion if everybody had a belief that we should share the planet's resources and not rape it for personal gain (beyond all possible need) we might have enough so that at least nobody starves or dies for lack of health care. That idea may be revolutionary. I know it got Jesus killed.
Lastly, about minding my own business, go back and tell that to everybody else that stated an opinion. We all have a right to state opinions which have no force or effect. I agree though that opinions that limit other's rights or freedoms, like making selling cigarettes illegal to sell but okay to grow would piss someone off if they wanted to sell it. And you make good points.
~Treefrog~ The same thing we did with DDT. BAN IT. Have you read that link I posted?
Do you know that our military has fired off thousands of TONS of DU ammo and bombs in the United States on gunnery ranges? In one tank shell, there are ten pounds of DU, or approx three cupfulls. It's a very heavy metal. In a single cupfull, there are approx (five billion) nano-partilces of deadly DU once it has been fired and burns. When used as ammo or in bombs, it burns and then DU becomes very deadly.
If one inhales a single nano-particle, cancer is assured. It blows in the wind, microscopic specks smaller than a grain of pollen and DU will remain deadly for billions of years and kill any living thing, down to the microbal level. ___ Cigarettes are not quite that deadly.
Here is a much briefer link
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_blowinginthewind.htm
Kem
I know all of these things, I just don't know what it would take for people to get a better sense of what this means and why we shouldn't do it. You see it would take changing attitudes about what is important and that would have to penetrate perceptions that are pretty fragmented. You have to identify the problem before you can create a solution.
Didn't you all read 1984?! Even now, people don't know what a 'real' cigarette tastes like.
You are right on with that ~Treefrog~. DU is a dead issue with our Free press. Not one in a hundred ever heard of it.