Who would be the right persons to contact with information
and materials that could be used to stop, or certainly
delay, any smoking bans?
The point is that the wording of laws and the "science"
used to justify such laws is routinely either patently
untrue or is based on unsound, sometimes famously
discredited studies. Publicans, and customers who
smoke, are being scapegoated to protect the interests
that made most cigarettes excessively addictive
and excessively, inevitably dangerous.
Please note that I am NOT making pleas for "rights
to smoke". My point is about EVERYONE's right
to not be secretly poisoned by product adulterants.
I contend that there must be a ban on ANY untested
and known harmful non-tobacco substances in cigarettes.
The bans, ironically, BENEFIT cigarette makers by
casting blame and burdens of law onto OTHERS and
onto a grossly under-studied natural plant. To my
knowledge, no study of plain tobacco or smoke from
plain tobacco has been presented in court or legislatures
or elsewhere. Tobacco is being condemned and banned
without a trial...often for diseases that are impossible
to be caused by tobacco or any plant. If they say
that "tobacco", by itself w/out adulterants,
does this or that harm, simply ask for the studies
that show this. One might point out that dioxin,
in cigarette smoke from the pesticide residues and
bleached paper, is ALREADY known to cause those
diseases. Dioxin cannot suddenly be SAFE in cigarette
smoke. I believe N. Ireland signed the POPs treaty
to phase dioxin off the earth. Officials cannot
now say that dioxin is of no concern.
Cigarettes are not defined for content that may
include some of the most toxic, carcinogenic NON-Tobacco
substances on earth...including dioxins and radiation.
Tobacco is not defined or described to include,
importantly, all the pesticide residues and hundreds
of other adulterants. Smoke is not defined or described
to differentiate it from an infinite number of other
forms of smoke. Smoke from a singed marshmallow
is quite different from smoke from a trash incinerator.
Smokers are VICTIMS of what is nothing less than
Secret Poisoning. No Informed Consent is sought
or given so that smokers know what they are actually
using...and it is NOT just tobacco by a long stretch.
Many of those who push for Smoke Bans are part of
the cigarette cartel via pesticides, other chemicals
and cigarette additives...and even insurance of
and investment IN cigarette manufacturing. Their
motive is to save the cigarette manufacturing and
supply firms from indictments and liabilities for
what they DID to the tobacco and the cigarettes...and
the Guinea pigged consumers. If any witnesses are
given credence to speak against "smoking",
they MUST be scrutinized for any links to the so-far
unpublicized parts of the cigarette industry. They
MUST be asked, in public, preferably under oath,
if they are referring to TOBACCO smoke, or to smoke
from multi-ingredient, pesticide-contaminated, radiation-contaminated
tobacco smoke. If they claim not to know, their
expertise is shattered.
In the USA, there are many so-called "tobacco
products" that many contain absolutely NO tobacco,
but instead "tobacco substitute material"
made in Patented processes to "simulate"
tobacco. That is...this stuff is a lie by its camouflaged
appearance, smell and taste. You cannot GET tobacco
smoke from such products. I don't know if fake tobacco
is legal in N. Ireland.
This is to say that Publicans, possibly also victims
of dioxin/radiation contaminated smoke, must NOT
be made to bear burdens of law for something for
which they were not responsible. This is doubly
true when one notices NO bans on untested and known
deadly non-tobacco substances in typical cigarettes.
Please note that the ban promoters want it both
ways: They say that "business improves"
one day, then the next day they want to impose bans
in neighboring jurisdictions so that customers do
not flock to the ban-free locations.
If any official uses the term "tobacco"
or "tobacco smoke" they must be required
to DEFINE it for content.
I have a blog with references to the above and more.
It's not perfect but it's a start.
Publicans ought be outraged at being cast as villains
for tolerating smoking, and for having to adjust
any business policies for the benefit of those who've
made most cigarettes so dangerous. It may be that
Publicans have been on the receiving end of libelous
statements. The officials who now don the halo of
"wholesomeness" and "health"
are the very ones who've allowed the toxic/carcinogenic
adulterants to be in the products and who've never
once warned consumers about the non-tobacco dangers.
This halo can be removed from them by simply making
it clear what typical cigarettes actually are...and
they are not just tobacco. This will put the ban
promoters on the ropes, deservedly so.