Pub Owners, Patrons Scapegoated

Independent Media Center, Ireland ^ | Tuesday February 18, 2003 | Watchdog

[Walnut]

don/t forget peeing can be addictive too.

[Walnut]

don/t forget peeing can be addictive too.

[qam1]

Yeah, I think this ramblings are about lawsuits.

I think he is trying to suggest another angle to attack the Tobacco companies.

If you can't win a suit against the tobacco companies on the grounds the sick smoker should have known about the risk of the tobacco itself I think he is suggesting you can instead win a suit based on the sick smoker wouldn't have known the risk of all the additives.

Either that or He is trying to suggest if you just got rid of the additives cigarettes would be much safer.

[Just another Joe]

The govt. exempted them from FDA control and requirements back when the FDA was founded before WW I. That is because they loved the tax money they generated.

They fall through the cracks now between the authority of various agencies, so no one has the power to require content labeling.

That could be true but when you look at almost anything that you put in your body nowadays (food, liquid) it almost always has on the package the 'ingredients' with all the manmade stuff there.
Why NOT do the same with prefabricated cigarettes?

[Just another Joe]

It didn't say that the newspaper was made from Ponderosa Pine. It said it was made from "tree pulp".

[Just another Joe]

But one thing he is totally correct about is the money involved in the anti-smoker industry - much of it does come from the pharmaceutical industry. But we all know that.

That was the other thing I thought he brought out really well.

[Just another Joe]

Either that or He is trying to suggest if you just got rid of the additives cigarettes would be much safer.

To me it all came down to the fact that there hasn't been any study on cigarette TOBACCO, only prefabricated cigarettes with all the additives thrown in.

[Servant of the Nine]

when you look at almost anything that you put in your body nowadays (food, liquid) it almost always has on the package the 'ingredients' with all the manmade stuff there. Why NOT do the same with prefabricated cigarettes?

NO, the question is, why should the govt. be sticking it's nose into everybodies business requiring lists of ingredients on any package.

So9

[TigersEye]

I'm not so worried about 'big oil' doctoring the cigarettes but it does seem a little strange that cigarette packs don't have to list any of the additives in the cigarettes, doesn't it?

It's the law. I read an article on this many years ago. By law tobacco companies are required to give a list of additives to the government once a year. They don't have to say which additives are in which cigarettes or what quantities just a list of all the additives they use. Another federal law requires the bureacrat/agency/department that collects this (I forget who) to put those lists under lock and key. Releasing that info is punishable by federal law.

The number of additives that all cigarette manufacturers use is something in the neighborhood of 800+. They include such things as acetone, saltpeter (one of the ones that keep cigs burning), ketones, menthols, sugars. Canada required American companies to disclose what additives were in what cigs in order to import them so, rather than reveal their proprietary recipes, they simply removed the chemicals for exports to Canada.

Nice little scam, eh? It has to be the biggest fraud and coverup the U.S. government has ever perpetrated. The tobacco lobby is king.

[Just another Joe]

NO, the question is, why should the govt. be sticking it's nose into everybodies business requiring lists of ingredients on any package.

I didn't say the government should.
I said that almost everyone else does. Whether it's the govt that requires it of them or they do it on their own.
IMO, the govt is into a lot of stuff that they shouldn't be. That doesn't mean that a company should be able to get away with anything at all.

I agree that if you don't know, by now, that there is a chance of cigarettes doing harm you probably can't read the ingredients.

[TigersEye]

Besides, if you are so dumb you don't know they will kill ya, then you are too dumb to read the package.

Shooting lead bullets in indoor ranges can result in lead poisoning if exposure is prolonged and repeated. If bullet manufacturers added something to their lead that was a thousand times more toxic than lead alone but kept that an industry secret wouldn't you be a little PO'd?

A lifetime of beer drinking can possibly lead to liver damage. Everyone knows this. So is it just too bad if beer makers put a flavor enhancer in beer that causes liver damage ten times faster but keep that an industry secret?

[aculeus]

The morning newspaper, made from tree pulp, is far more closely a Ponderosa Pine than the stuff in a typical cigarette is tobacco.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

[Just another Joe]

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Really? Could you point out to me where I erred?

[Madame Dufarge]

To me it all came down to the fact that there hasn't been any study on cigarette TOBACCO, only prefabricated cigarettes with all the additives thrown in.

I think you may be on to something here.

[Madame Dufarge]

I got the feeling (since that's just about all you can get from this screed) that he was in favor of both.

Sue the pants off "Big Tobacco" and get rid of the additives.

I agree on the latter part; but that doesn't mean that smokers didn't choose to take on the risks and let the chips fall where they may.

My grandfather (who smoked) called cigarettes "coffin nails." This was a term in common usage.

But of course, he was from the old school of "pick your poison" and never would have considered blaming anyone else for his choice.

I have a lot of respect for those whine-free old-timers.