It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Politicians still protect big tobacco

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Found this Article on our local newspapers site, and thought a few things where awful werid and a huge conflict of interest. How can this be legal?

See this is the kinda things that are REAL Conspiracies, and there seem to be nothing that can be done. Very Frustrating.




Just when it seemed the Justice Department was hot on big tobacco's tail, it caught a case of cold feet. First it reduced from $130 billion to $10 billion the amount it wants the industry to cough up for smoking-cessation programs. Then its own witnesses came forward to say that department lawyers tried to get them to soften their testimony in the landmark fraud case.





For five decades they conspired to help us kill ourselves. But never mind. The overseer of the government's case is now Associate Attorney General Robert D. McCallum Jr., who happens to have once been a partner in an Atlanta law firm representing R.J. Reynolds.



source

edit to shorten link

[edit on 28-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
This is also discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(ATSNN)



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Some of us are smokers.

We like big tobacco. Heap big tobacco.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Isn't it a bit ironic?
I find it hard to beliee that government didn't know what was going on with the tobacco industry all along. Citizens/lawyers get up in arms, and there is a mega-lawsuit. How can the government then be involved in any legal actions against tobacco?

Furthermore, why should my tax dollars go to support smoking cessation? If I had my way, the penalty would be about $9.99.
Just another example of the government telling us what to do and then making us pay for it


Disclaimer: spouse of a former smoker, who quit on his own



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Face it, embrace it, learn to love it.

We'd still be paying the Queen of England tea tax and picking cotton if not for tobacco.

And no matter what any politician EVER tells you to the contrary, this is what they mean...

I LOVE pharmo profits, illegal immigration, outsourcing, taxes, porn AND young people smoking.

I work for them, not you. Bite me.

Oh, and 'Family Values,' praise Jesus and buy defense stocks. Baby needs a new pair of fake boobs.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I cannot think of a bigger evil corporate entity of the nwo than Phillip Morris and their ilk. Think of all the scientific and psychological profiling research that has gone into enslaving entire developing countires and regions with their poison. And those anti tobacco ads are an even bigger joke, given they are funded by Big Tobacco to try and hoodwink folks into thinking they are the good guys.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I think that grown adults should [ and have for decades upon decades ] that smoking is bad for you , I smoke.....I dont blame big t

I remeber when Gum came in cig like packs , rolled in its own paper....
Did that co. get sued?.....no.......

The problem here is people do it to themselves.The Powers that be have a hard on for smoking so they are bad.....

Id rather die of cancer or a heart attack , than be 80 , livin on SS, and having todays youth take care o wipin my butt........



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
As much I dislike smoking and know how bad it is for you, I'm glad this happened. What's the purpose of all those "truth" commercials and "Fair Enough" commercials. Seriously, people already know smoking's not healthy and chose to do it anyway and always will. The majority of humans are very weak minded.

The real question is, why would the government who LOVES big corporations try to hurt one of the biggest in America? It's got me puzzled.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   


The real question is, why would the government who LOVES big corporations try to hurt one of the biggest in America? It's got me puzzled.


Well why goes the government do any of the puzzling things it does? Now I will say this about the Truth.com ads over the years, the guerrilla style confrontational feel of these felt a little exhilarating. Of course when ya find out truth.com is just a shill, as is Michael Moore...it takes the fun away.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent
I cannot think of a bigger evil corporate entity of the nwo than Phillip Morris and their ilk. Think of all the scientific and psychological profiling research that has gone into enslaving entire developing countires and regions with their poison.


Sorry. Laughing because I did that research. Only for RJR and the target is to enslave American "patriots" not developing countries. I didn't work international, but I do believe most of those resources went to prosecuting knock offs and smugglers. Just because you buy a pack of Camel's in mexico for half the price doesn't mean it was either made by RJR or they see one dime. Really, there's no guarantee what you're smoking. Could be dung.



And those anti tobacco ads are an even bigger joke, given they are funded by Big Tobacco to try and hoodwink folks into thinking they are the good guys.


They do all have massive government mandated education programs like the We Card campaign, but unless something has changed those "Truth" ads are from a facist organization of a different flavor: The American Cancer Society.

They have all kinds of fronts they use to advertise against products (and for themselves) through the award winning "rad ad" firm of Crispin Porter + Bogusky and it's to raise money for cancer research with backdoor soft awareness peddling. They don't really care if you smoke. They just want anti-smokers mad enough to send money. Can't have a cancer society without smokers. This is business people. Just like MADD needs drunk drivers, ACS needs cancer.

So all you anti-smoking vigilantes need to get it straight. You're just working the other side of the same coin. The point is conflict, not resolution.

There's no profit in peace.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   


And no matter what any politician EVER tells you to the contrary, this is what they mean...

I LOVE pharmo profits, illegal immigration, outsourcing, taxes, porn AND young people smoking.

I work for them, not you. Bite me.

Oh, and 'Family Values,' praise Jesus and buy defense stocks. Baby needs a new pair of fake boobs.


A sad, but sobering truth....as is the note of "no profit in peace"...

Personally, I could care less if people smoked, as long as I'm not forced to breathe it in. However, I don't see any reason that a business can't elect to be a smoking or non-smoking establishment. If a restaurant wanted to cater to a smoking clientelle, that should be their business, imho...

[edit on 30-6-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Right, the establishments and businesses should have the right to decide whether to be smoking or non-smoking.
All you non-smoking activists think the government is doing you a favor legislating no smoking areas. Really, they are just getting ready to take away more of your freedoms. YOu just think they are doing you a kindness


(I'm actually surprised at there is no huge outcry for this decsion to limit damages.)



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I think that everyone should have the choice to smoke or not, everybody at this point knows the risks of lighting up a smoke and sucking back all of those wounderful toxins and cancer-causing agents. I think that there should be harsher penalties for young people smoking though, because if we get them when they are younger and might not fully realise what they are doing, you have a better chance of ridding them of that habit.

I don't smoke but I have a few friends who do, and we are only 16-17. They manage to get their smokes pretty easily from friends who are older, even if they go up with them and pick the brand they want to be bought for them in front of the helpful clerk who is barely awake or paying attention. Congratulations you have another young one on their way to cancer, heart disease or any other of the fabulous conditions waiting for you inside that small little tube, it truly is a world of wounder! That is until you are 45 and strapped to many machines to help you live.

People need to help people my age and realise what they could do with smokes, and then once they understand the risks....it is their choice and in the end their own body.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Here's the problem...what is it that attracts people to start smoking? I can see people smoking pot to relieve ailements, but what is it about smoking that has an allure? Hey, I mean I do think the anti smoking stuff is getting rediculous...I mean not being able to smoke in bars is pretty nuts. But I cant get over how much smokign stinks up everything, is uncool to people around you, and for women its shown to be immensely more harmful.

But all that aside, like anything I guess its a choice. One of my fave late great comedians Bill Hicks worshipped the cigarette, and he was a huge anti corporate/anti NWO guy. In the end smokign really doesnt matter, as long as loved ones and friends dont have to breathe it in.

But I want to see more Truth.com guerrilla style ambush documentarian stuff.
I wanna see peopel crash Bilderberg, WTO meetings, etc.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
What about the hippocracy of big business. The government claims to protect citizens from "dangerous" products such as ephedra and such nutritional supplementation, going as far as steroids. While the american government has been spending millions in the investigation into steroids in pro sports and abroad, what about the cigarettes.

I dont want to hijack the thread, but someone looking to better there body its illegal and governments must step in for your own protection. But when cigarettes go and kill hundreds of thousands a year knowingly, governments do nothing?

All because theres not billions in the marketing of steroids?...



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Ironic eh? If I myself came out with a product that caused cancers and/or killed people, most likely the FDA would shut me down. Or worse, criminal charges would be put upon me relating to the deaths of my product.

Twisted world.

Sean



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
To put it mildly, Congress is addicted to nicotine, or more precisely, the big money that nicotine brings to them. It's a huge business with an addicted clientele. By giving its blessings to tobacco Congress has made itself the largest drug dealer on this planet with profits far out stripping those of the coc aine or heroin dealers.

If they truly wanted to put a stop to it the solution is quite simple. Tobacco farmers and companies can sell all the cigarettes they want, as long as those cigarettes do not contain nicotine. They've already proved they can make them, they just stopped making them because no one bought them.

Remove the nicotine and you remove the problem. No drug dealer in his right mind would agree to that, and Congress wouldn't either.

Wupy



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Back when the states where suing Tobacco companies (calling them "BIG Tobacco" is childish). I suggested that the Tobacco companies threaten to pull out of any state that was part of the suit. Absolutely refuse to sell their product in that state. Then sit back and wait for the states to drop the suits and beg for their business back.




top topics



 
0

log in

join