This is an extract from letter to N. Ireland Pub owners association that explains.
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 this is not a plea for "rights to
smoke". The point is about EVERYONE's right to not be
secretly poisoned by product adulterants. There must be a ban on ANY untested and known harmful non-tobacco substances in cigarettes...and other products as well. Cigarettes are just the most deadly delivery devices.
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
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
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
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
If any official uses the term "tobacco" or "tobacco
smoke" they must be required to DEFINE it for content.
For info, simply Google terms such as "tobacco pesticides", "cigarettes dioxin", "cigarettes radiation", "dioxin tobacco", "cigarette ingredients", "EPA secondhand smoke Osteen", and related terms.
Publicans ought be outraged at being cast as villains
for tolerating smoking (as if they are complicit in mass poisoning), 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 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.