We are glad to address our readers to the new publication The Smoker Magazine, from Great Britain.
The Smoker Magazine seems a worthy initiative. In particular we note here the magazine’s online Petition to Her Majesty’s Government, calling for the UK Government to act on the following: "We are told by the Government that it is not the tobacco itself, but the toxins and chemicals in cigarettes and other tobacco products that cause a danger to our lives. If this is the case, The Smoker Magazine calls upon this Government to ban all harmful toxins and chemicals from cigarettes and all other tobacco products in this country, and to make all tobacco products safe."

The issue of the toxins in tobacco is, technically, real. Excess, in drinking, smoking, eating, and a thousand other things, carries risk. If you have a substantial long-term smoking habit you can suffer for it. What is not real is the contention that the amount of tobacco toxins is sufficient to harm anyone when it comes from passive smoking. That, as we all know, is a lie.

When it comes to active smoking, the issue becomes even more interesting. As consumers, smokers have the right to demand a safer product. Beside the fact that the toxins in active smoking are common to a thousand other compounds that are not demonized, nevertheless, cigarettes can be made much safer.

The statement that cigarettes are an inherently dangerous (or “defective”) product is false. That is hogwash antismoking propaganda. Cigarettes are an industrial product and, as for instance with cars, they can easily be made safer. Let it be clear we are not referring to inhalers, electronic cigarettes, or to any of the other "nicotine replacement" trash (marketed as “therapy” for a disease that is not there.) We refer to real tobacco, and to real burning cigarettes.

Such cigarettes were researched and developed with multi-million dollar joint research between Big Tobacco and Big Health in the late 60s and early 70s. Then, because of the Big Pharma development of its garbage pharmaceutical nicotine, the entire program was suppressed, and all research buried. That is not conspiracy theory, as we have all the hard documentation to prove it — documentation that will soon be published, just watch for it at FORCES in the next few months. A safer cigarette is a feasible reality that is being desperately suffocated by the criminals of Big Health who, paradoxically, advertise millions of indemonstrable deaths from smoking while suppressing the products that would "prevent" them, stating that quitting is the only way to be “sure.”

They are lying as usual. Quitting smoking is not the only way to be “sure." In the assumption that the “tobacco-related” mortality is real, the suppression of a safer product by both the tobacco industry and especially “public health” constitutes a deliberate criminal act of genocidal dimensions, deliberately motivated by financial and ideological reasons that are as insane as they are criminal: we kill millions to get them to quit because we hate cigarettes! That would have the same “logical” foundations as preventing cars from evolving their braking systems on the grounds that we "hate" them because they pollute the planets; yet, that is exactly the logic adopted by “public health.”

Let us say that once again for emphasis: the antitobacco enterprise and the "public health" criminals would rather allow millions to die to obtain the extinction of cigarettes than prevent their deaths by allowing and encouraging the development and use of a safer product that could perpetuate smoking.

A safer cigarette is something that millions of consumers would truly be interested in but it will not be achieved with small petitions to local authorities as — since their religion is to get people to quit — they will simply ignore such petitions. It will take more. It will take an international coalition of consumers demanding improved cigarettes. Separated and fragmented, with a few web sites and usually no money, we will achieve too little to make the difference.

Once again it’s the consumer that is at the helm — but the consumer must come to realize his power. We don’t believe that "smoking kills." We don’t intend to quit. We don’t want to change our values and our way of life. We want that way of life to be part of society because smokers ARE part of society — and smoker-haters better learn to live with that because, as “the debate is over”, we will “make” them accept that as much as they want to “make” us accept the "denormalization" of smoking. Thus we will denormalize them, and not the other way around.

Regardless of individual opinions, who would reject a safer product, apart from a zealot?



Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder