If there is risk to excess in many things, what passes as "education" on the harmfulness of tobacco is far more ideology and plain superstition, than reality. While therapeutic properties of nicotine may be discussed in medical journals the public message must always be that tobacco is an evil weed. What would happen to fraudulent "tobacco control" and to its ideology if a “harmless” tobacco were to be genetically engineered?
In fact genetic engineering toward harmless tobacco is already underway. Reports are that “in large-scale field trials, scientists from North Carolina State University have shown that silencing a specific gene in burley tobacco plants significantly reduces harmful carcinogens in cured tobacco leaves.”
Of course we have to keep in mind that “harmful carcinogens” is a favourite sound bite of the antismoking shysters. Listing substances that are carcinogenic in rats (usually themselves bred for susceptibility to cancer) typically at dosages between hundreds and many thousands of times those existing in real life is the favourite stunt of the professionals of the cancer scam industry.
The application of that stunt against any product or industry that the Healthists want to regulate to extinction after sucking all the money out of it is universal. Recall just for instance cyclamates, still banned in the USA, though exonerated long ago. The deceptive and cosmically fallacious foundation is that what kills you by the tonne will kill you by the gram.
This has made classification of many substances as "carcinogenic" dubious to say the least and that applies with tobacco. Furthermore, while there is no disease, cancer or otherwise, unique to smokers, when smokers die of the same things non-smokers die of, the smokers’ deaths are typically "attributed" to "causation" by tobacco, without logical foundation. The plain fact is that not even one death can be scientifically demonstrated to be "caused by smoking."
Putting all that aside, a safer product is always desirable, and we would certainly not oppose a safer cigarette — as long as it is a cigarette that looks like a cigarette, tastes like a cigarette and smokes like a cigarette as opposed to trash pharmaceutical contraptions such as inhalers and vaporizers, built for the fools who believe that they are robotic addicts.
What would a safe or reduced risk cigarette do to the fraudulent industry of tobacco control? The answer is as clear as it is instinctive: it would simply put the bastards out of business. Just imagine:
Reduced grants for trash epidemiological “research."
Reduced fervour to ban smoking and to promote prohibition.
Reduced public billions for propaganda to lie to the people (or to build freeways and bridges with the money of smokers.)
Reduced bureaucracy hence reduced job opportunity for antismoking “public health” parasites.
Reduced rationalization to tax tobacco for “therapeutic” purposes.
Reduced opportunity to shovel out “there is no safe level of exposure” bullshit.
Reduced shovelling opportunity as well for the “cigarettes are an inherently defective product” kind of ideology, produced and promoted by the morally and mentally defective “health advocacy” groups.
Beyond this and especially: a reduced market for the pharmaceuticals — thus the pharmaceuticals would stop paying off their activist marionettes such as the Americans for Non Smokers’ Rights, just to mention one of the many, to promote their defective smoking cessation trash.
Let’s be realistic: can you actually envision Stanton Glantz or John Banzhaff out of a job? Can you envision Johnson & Johnson, Glaxo-SmithKline and Pfizer surrendering their market? Can you conceive the crooks at the World Health Organization dismantling the Tobacco Framework Convention after they managed to con almost every government on Earth to sign it?
In theory, if these people were honest and they actually had public health at heart, they would do that just. That is one big IF. We know better — and so do you. After all, those people are making a luxurious living with the tobacco control industry fraud, and they will not give it up. They also have epidemiological trash science at their command — and, as we know, with lifestyle epidemiology virtually any desired result is possible: all you need is a sponsor and the right questionnaire.
Tobacco control wil "discover" its science on the matter. We can imagine the objections to the “new tobacco”: “It is not scientifically demonstrated that it is harmless, even if it does not have the carcinogens!” — while forgetting, as always and of course, that so far they have been unable to demonstrate that just one death is caused by smoking. “Smoking tobacco still infringes on the rights of non smokers!” — while forgetting, as a Master Race prerogative, that the rights of smokers have been infringed upon for the last quarter century, and that the mantra of "ETS kills" is vicious hate speech, also of course a time-honoured Master Race prerogative. Most loudly of all will come "It is impossible to make a safe cigarette!" — and, in fact, this easiest of prophecies has already come true: as we were writing these lines we just found this piece of trash that badmouths the cigarette of the future. (Stored copy here).
The antismokers, so vastly entrenched from decades of childish foot-stomping, rather remind us of the archteypal idiot director of the US patent office who, in the 1950s, resigned his post because he said that there was nothing else left to invent. Of course any industrial product can potentially be made safer and can be made better — and cigarettes are an industrial product. The link to the news report referred to primarily in this commentary appears at the link at bottom this page. Here are a couple of additional examples of blue-faced antismoking intransigence:
Additional article 1 (stored copy here) Tobacco control wants to convince you that it is impossible to make safer tobacco. How can you re-engineer Satan?…
Additional article 2 (stored copy here) Tobacco control is aghast that Philip Morris has financed the research on reduction of carcinogens via genetic engineering. Apparently Big Pharma’s commercial interests are ennobling but those of cigarette makers are corrupting. The anti-smokers want to know why they were not kept abreast of this research while it was in progress. Naturally, Philip Morris should have kept an open line to all of its tobacco competitors, and to Prohibition Central, so that the tobaccophobes could get their foot-stomping routine into high gear in advance.
Oh, well, cons will be cons, and liars will be liars — and bigots can never be changed with logic or science. We welcome this news, for whatever it may ultimately be worth in terms of product design, but certainly it will not change the political reality one bit. That will only be changed with force — which is what antismokers use on others: everyone understands only the language he speaks after all.
If you choose to enjoy tobacco the way nature made it then enjoy it. If considerably redesigned and potentially safer cigarettes ever do appear — not if tobacco control can stop it — use your taste and judgement on that matter as well. Your taste, your judgement, and your choice are all under assault in the era of Healthist domination. Know that, and do something about it, today.