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.

 

FDA weighs ban on Newports, other menthol cigarettes

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


Here's a minor wake-up call: nobody, but nobody lives forever. I will live my life the way I want to and the FDA can keep the hell out of it.

For anyone who argues that my lifestyle increases their insurance premiums I call BS: smokers pay a higher premium for specifically that. Ever apply for life insurance?

If I get lung cancer, you non-smokers out there don't have to worry about footing part of my health bills for 18 months or so; I've got a .40 caliber that will solve that problem real quick. The day I am told I need chemo is the day I check out.

Nobody lives forever, but some of us want to live while we are here.

EDIT: Starred and flagged OP.

edit on 15-3-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: Add




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Well if they want to ban menthol cigs, they should ban anything with menthol.
as in mouthwash, and toothpaste, and cosmetics, etc. then its all addictive right?
What about alcohol with menthol in it? isn't that more addicting as well?

they have been trying to do this for sometime, I doubt they will anytime soon. Too many politicians smoke.

And I smoke menthol as well, american spirit.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


menthol was known in the 1800's to be a "cure all". ive been to a museum in colorado that had menthol everything in the medicine cabinet.

the history of menthol will straighten this one out for all.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
OH NO!

Not the newports!!

I'm glad I don't smoke menthols or I would be OUTRAGED!!!!!

FDA nanny state BS!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Anybody worried about the cost to society smokers place on it, just bear in mind how much of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is taxes and how much is the cost of manufacture. The exact amount varies place to place but the greatest lion's share is taxes. If there is a cost to society the tax a smoker pays should more than offset that amount - even if that were the manner in which a smoker paid for his health insurance, through cigarette tax.

I doubt it will ever work the way it should. What is that tax money currently spent on? I would really like to know. And if anyone does know, would you please tell the whiners what it covers? I think people would be surprised.
edit on 15-3-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


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.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
i think its great that all these people want to save me and theirselves from dying, but it aint gonna happen. you will die and most likely it wont be a pleasant experience for you or me. you can take away cigs, but we will all still die from something and it can still be lung cancer as it is proven that more non-smokers die from lung cancer than smokers do. figure that one out. ohh must be they got caught from second hand smoke. yeah, abolish smoking and there is nothing more to fear. except what they will go after next.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarly
I understand that I've had family member pass away from lung cancer. I understand they smoked almost every day other lives, considering they were about 80 years old. I understand I can't breath when my mother lights up one of her cigarettes.

It should be illegal to smoke a cigarette around anyone who doesn't want to smell that crap. Why? You're harming me. Other than that, if you want to kill yourself slowly, go ahead. Though, once you start, it really isn't your choice. That's what addiction is. Who cares about rights when it comes to this crap filled with rat poison and thousands of other additives?


Hrmm I chose to quit smoking cigarettes back in 1995. I did so because I was addicted and couldn't stand smoking but still did.

Of course quitting took more effort than choosing to quit, as it does with anything that is habitual or addictive.

As long as you have the ability to move, then it shouldn't be illegal simply to smoke around someone... If this were the case it would look rather silly with homes buit next to highways...




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join