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.

 

FSC cigarettes violate Human Rights

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
For those who don't know, FSC, Fire Safe Cigarettes, are becoming mandatory in America. This means there are added bands of chemicals that make sure a cigarette goes out if not continuously smoked. The chemicals have NOT been tested for safety.

Most say, "But cigarettes are bad for you anyway." Not necessarily. There are some benefits, such as a lower rate of Parkinson's Disease for smokers. Also, we have a free choice to smoke, just like someone has a free choice to eat junk food, which is also bad for you.

I also think natural tobacco is MUCH healthier (or less unhealthy) than commercial tobacco. In addition, some mention the thousands of carcinogens in cigarettes, but coffee also has thousands of carcinogens.

My point is this: There are not many fires due to cigarettes. Many more people die from fires due to cooking accidents. Many, MANY people die every day from Medical Mistakes, Car Accidents, and so on. . . so why are they concerned about Fire Safe Cigarettes?

I think they want to make sure that even natural cigarettes have added chemicals, to make sure people are getting their fair share of toxins. I mean, what they use in Fire Safe Cigarettes (FSC) are NOT tested. It is crazy, but like I said, most people will just say, "Well, they're bad for you anyway."

Why do FSC cigarettes violate Human Rights?

Fire is something that hominid creatures have had control of for AT LEAST 700,000 years! Most archaeologists estimate modern humans to be about 250,000 years old, which means control of fire is an instinct for us. We evolved with fire. It is a part of modern humanity to control fire. That is one of the advantages we have over animals. (Although we still have many other advantages over animals.)

Does anyone understand? It is a Basic Human Right to be able to smoke a cigarettes that does not have added chemicals! There might be a line dawn for, say bonfires that are too big, or in certain areas where bonfires might be bothersome or dangerous to neighbors, but I'm talking about cigarettes.

Also, many are saying FSC cigarettes are MORE dangerous, because the cigarette keeps going out, and must be relighted many times, using more matches or lighters. In any case, the number of fires caused by cigarettes are not large, and I've heard MANY of the fires are actually NOT caused by cigarettes, but cigarettes are the excuse they tell the insurance company, to get the insurance money, blaming the fire on, "Oh, I fell asleep with a lit cigarette on the couch and it fell into a pile of tissues".

Does anyone agree with me?

Remember, the Nazis were very anti-smoking. That's what's happening now. First, cigarette/tobacco prices skyrocket to the point where most of the cost is taxes (it depends which state), and then added-chemicals are mandatory "for our own safety", and maybe soon, they'll be outright illegal.

Finally, FSC cigarettes have a metallic taste. Google something like "complaints of FSC cigarettes" or something, and you'll get thousands of complaints about the taste, or side-effects like head-aches, nausea, etc..




posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
When I worked out in the bush logging many years ago, tailor made cigarettes were banned. If you wanted to smoke, you rolled your own as the tobacco would go out if not smoked.

I believe that there was an additive back then in them to keep them burning.

Many a forest fire has been started from careless smoking.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 

I dunno...I'm probably not the best person to talk of this, because personally, I find cigarette smoking to be a sign of....something very wrong (to put it mildly).

Bit by bit, smoking is becoming completely banned anyway....wasn't there some law passed last year that prohibited smoking in all pubs and restaurants? There was lots of opposition, but it all slowly tapered off.

Also, I wouldn't think "Smoking is LESS harmful than " is really a valid excuse. Shooting oneself in the foot is less harmful than shooting oneself in the face, but that doesn't make either of them a good idea.
I've heard the same argument used for legalisation of marijuana ("It is less harmful to smoke marijuana than to smoke tobacco"), and that seems just as silly.

Also, as an aside, I had learnt in history classes as a kid that usage of fire is only 400,000 years old (not that it makes any difference to your point, just a clarification).

Second also: "The Nazis did and therefore is wrong" is not really a valid argument


PS: I know my post may seem somewhat confrontational, but I don't mean it like this, I promise!

You were bound to expect these points to come up, so I gave them to you early!



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Yes I expected it, but thanks for reminding me about "no smoking indoors" in many places. I forgot about that one.

I still think natural tobacco is better. I think they should regulate junk food more too. Obesity is the biggest killer now, and yet high-fructose corn-syrup is legal and promoted, although it has no health benefits and many dangers. (to give one example of hypocrisy)...

And about the 400,000 year old hominid fire control. . . That was an old theory. The date keeps getting pushed back. I learned 700,000 years in college 8 years ago, and before i left they were trying to push the date to 1.5 Million years old after a major archaeological find in Indonesia. In any case, even 400,000 years is older than modern humans (150-250,000), which is where the instinct part comes in.

I'd also like to add the danger of ABORTION, and that the health dangers for women who get abortions are worse than a life-long smoker. This is a well-known fact to ANYONE in the Medical Field, but is swept under the rug by the media. (I think abortion should be taxed heavily, just like tobacco.)



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Well I'm not sure about which links are legitimate or not, but I've heard from people in the Medical Field that the risk of breast cancer for women who've had abortions is greater than the risk of lung cancer for smokers.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 




FSC cigarettes violate Human Rights


Just be patient. Left to their own ends, the government will eventually regulate the sum of stretch in the elastic of your underwear, require a tax on unprotected sex, demand that children wear ID tags like a pet and seek to convict anyone who dares to read anything written by Mark Twain.

Further down, anyone flying an old Confederate flag at a football game will be charged with racism, those who quote Thomas Jefferson on the web will be levied a fine for the act and anyone who doesn't shop at Walmart once a year will be forced to surrender their toaster and coffee pot.

And yes... you are welcome to it.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
If you do a search for "tobacco seeds" you will find companies that will sell you seeds to grow your own. I am about ready to build a green house in my back yard, just for tobacco. It only takes 4 to 5 weeks to get a harvest.
You get chemical-free tobacco and no tax. Make sure you don't sell any, otherwise the BATF might do a Waco on you. (Koresh's violation was selling re-loaded ammo without collecting the tax)
In Florida, I can grow year-round. You have to have a shredder to chop it up. I think if you had a heavy duty office shredder, it would do the trick. Otherwise, the seed company will sell you a hand crank version for a little over $100.
The American Indians used tobacco leaves for money.

[edit on 31-10-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 



The signing of the new Tobacco Safety Act of 2009 by the IMF- CEO Barry Soetoro gives most Tobacco Corporations and their affiliated "parent" companys complete immunity from any resulting public sickness or illness as a result of any "modifications" to their product. Also, they are not required by law to notify the public of any related illness nor is any research required by the "government" pertaining to any illness claims by the public ( under Sec. 909 Records and Reports, articles (A) 3-6) and Sec 911 "Modified Risk Tobacco Products") More than 27,000 smokers worldwide have signed a petition since the implementation of world-wide FSC or "Fire Safety Compliance" laws claiming a strong metallic taste, headaches, sores in their mouth, nausea and diarrhea. It has of course, fallen on deaf ears and has been completely ignored by our World Bank and IMF "government" and of course, corporations within the Tobacco Industry. But this...is just the tip of the iceburg.

In 2000, Phillip Morris began using what they called "fire safe technology" in their Merit brand of cigarettes. Once again, this was done without any public notice whatsoever, just like the current FSC laws. They were sued by The Department of Justice in 2004 which forced them to change to the newer "government" standard of FSC cigarettes soon to be implemented for the first time in New York in 2005. Phillip Morris' version obviously did not contain all of the unnecessary toxic metallic nanoparticulates. It's interesting to note that the state with the highest amount of population within the US at the time, was the first to implement these newly formed FSC standards. Ironically, FSC cigarettes are called Reduced Ignition Propensity (or RIP) cigarettes by the Tobacco Industry.
In US Patent 7,640,936 filed September of 2005, Phillip Morris scientists explain in depth, the introduction of metal oxide nano-particulates to their products. The same type US patent was recently granted to RJ Reynolds in 2010 (#20100122708). Note that these patents were granted AFTER US-CEO Barry Soetoro signed the Tobacco Safety Act of 2009, supposedly giving the FDA and the US "government" control over tobacco additives.
The nanoparticles are incorporated into tobacco filler material cigarette paper and/or filter material, according to Muslim inventors Sharyar Rabiei, Firooz Rasouli and Mohammed Hajaligol. The metal oxide particulates consist of a combination of copper oxide, cerium oxide, titanium oxide, iron oxide and Yttrium, a radioactive rare-earth element... less than one micron in diameter, meaning they easily pass through the filter and are inhaled. This combination can then be applied to the cigarette paper or filler using an adhesive such as VINYL ACETATE, forming bands along the length of the cigarette. This toxic metallic mix, supposedly cuts down on carbon monoxide emissions from cigarette smoke, but in my opinion, there's a far more sinister agenda. Smokers are now inhaling a mixture of toxic metallic nano-particulates which explains the metallic taste and sicknesses expressed by so many smokers to date. Nanoparticulates are more deeply ingested on a cellular level, meaning once they're in the cell, they cannot be removed by conventional detoxifying methods and the above mentioned are known to break cells DNA strands and cause mutations. The result will be a myriad of new, aggressive forms of cancer which do not respond at all to conventional chemotherapy "treatment". This, in combination with IMF/Soetoro proposed budget cuts to water treatment facilities and newly relaxed EPA standards on agricultural toxic waste disposal and the numerous "profit poisons" in our food will lead to a rapid decline in human population and health. The "official" FSC website conveniently refuses to mention these toxic metallic nanoparticulates. The question is...why are these now being added under the disguise of FDA tobacco regulation via "The Tobacco Safety Act of 2009? Please research the above patent numbers for yourself.




top topics



 
0

log in

join