Return To Front Page News... Send this page to a friend RSS Feed

News Item

Fire-safe cigarettes: smokers as lab experiments

6th March 2009
We all know – by God! – that the job of “public health” is to “protect” the health of the citizens, whether that health is really in danger or not. Ok, now let’s talk about reality. This video is recommended viewing.

One of the many prongs of the international antismoking fraud's arguments is that cigarettes are a fire hazard. Indeed, if not used prudently, they may be – but so is hot oil in a forgotten fry pan when it reaches the flash point. If “public health” were to be consistent with the rhetoric it vomits every day, it should rush to regulate that too – better yet, impose some sort of fire-safe oil. Don’t smile, they will do that too as soon as they get around to it, since their power seems to be unlimited and unchecked.

Back to the smokes. Since there is a slim possibility of fire – and in keeping with the zero tolerance/risk/intelligence religion – it seems “logical” that the pyrophobes of public health should demand that even cigarettes be fire-safe.

How is a cigarette made “fire-safe”? The answer is simple: by altering its chemical composition with the use of additives. Let us remember that the antismoking fanatics attack the tobacco industry on the basis of  mysterious “additives” that are not really mysterious because any lab can find out, and they are not really harmful either – unless you believe that cocoa or similar substances are harmful. Strangely enough, however, the antismoking activists and their  “public health” friends are totally silent on fire-safe cigarettes, which are loaded with unnecessary toxins to make them… fire-safe? How fire-safe can a cigarette be if it has a hot tip that could fall on the floor?

Now, please let’s go back to the postulation that the job of public health is to protect the health of citizens. Let's see how ridiculous that postulation really is, especially when it comes to smokers.

Where are the concerns about additives in the case of "fire-safe" cigarettes? How come the public health “authorities” are silent on this? Where are the antismoking groups that claim to “worry” about the “health” of their victims while really worrying only about their grants?

This video explains how cigarettes are made “fire-safe”. It was made by a roll-your-own cigarette company called Custom Blends, and our adversaries will dismissively claim that this constitutes a special interest that renders their points unworthy of consideration. We think the points should be considered on their merits and be the start of further investigations. 

Certainly, it would be nice if the “authorities” would come forward and say that what they have imposed by law -- namely the "fire-safe cigs" -- harms health. But that never happen for obvious reasons.

For now, defend yourself: DO NOT BUY fire-safe cigarettes. If they are the only “choice” available, buy roll-your-own or contraband instead. Watch this video to learn why. Remember: those who have mandated "fire-safe" cigarettes are the same breed that held back the safe cigarette for 30 years to push the prohibition/smoking cessation pharmaceutical agenda. Those people have no credibility and deserve no respect.

 


Link To Original Article »»


FORCES is supported solely by the efforts of the readers. Please become a member or donate what you can.



Contact Info
Forces Contacts
Media Contacts
Advertisers
Other Top Stories
Maine
Russia
Chicago
Smuggling Smokes Profitable
Just When You Think You Have Seen It All
Wasting Tax Dollars
Ireland
Other News and Information
Seven Places Not To Vist
12th April 2012
Manilla
27th February 2012
Major Anti Campaign
8th February 2012
Global Taxation
7th February 2012
Toxic Food?
19th January 2012
Carcinogens in Foods
9th January 2012
Bhutan
16th December 2011
No New Toobacco Tax in Idah
7th December 2011
Sore Loser in Greenbelt
5th December 2011
Montana
27th November 2011
Columnists
Ian DunbarIan Dunbar, United Kingdom

Latest Article »»  

Bill Brown, USA

Latest Article »»  

Michael J. McFadden, USA

Latest Article »»  

Joe Jackson, United Kingdom

Latest Article »»  

Virginia Day, USA

Latest Article »»  

Robert Prasker, USA

Latest Article »»
Contact Robert Prasker »»

John Dunn, MD, United States

Latest Article »»
Contact John Dunn, MD »»

Andrew Phillips, Canada

Latest Article »»
Contact Andrew Phillips »»

Pat Nurse, United Kingdom

Latest Article »»
Contact Pat Nurse »»

Elio F. Gagliano, MD, Italy

Latest Article »»  

Edmund Contoski, USA

Latest Article »»
Contact Edmund Contoski »»

John Luik, Canada

Latest Article »»  

Norman Kjono, USA

Latest Article »»
Contact Norman Kjono »»

Gian Turci, Italy

Latest Article »»  

Søren Højbjerg, Denmark

Latest Article »»
Contact Søren Højbjerg »»