Obama May Sign Pesticide Industry Protection Act

All Bad Legislation comes wearing a halo. That's how about 60 years of Reefer Madness drug war atrocities began. The just-passed law (not signed yet) giving the FDA power to &quot;regulate tobacco&quot; is not what mainstream media, or public officials tell us. This is Reefer Madness II, concocted by the same industries who did RM I...important whether or not one cares about &quot;smoking&quot; of any plant. <!--break--> Forty Nine Reasons for Obama Not to sign the FDA &quot;tobacco&quot; bill--- Every one of the 49 &quot;findings&quot; that justify the just-passed FDA &quot;tobacco regulation&quot; bill have problems...some quite basic. That the legislation is about control of tobacco, not control of manufacturers of cigarettes, is only one of endless rhetorical oddities. This is far from being just about “smoking”, pro or con. It concerns matters relating to pesticides, chlorine and dioxins, non-organic agriculture, the “war on organics”, pharmaceuticals, public health, government conflicts of interest with private industries, questionable science, media complicity, threats to Free Speech, intrusions into Indian Sovereignty, states’ rights, industrial evasion of liabilities, insurer evasions of responsibilities for their investment properties (with that link to Single Payer), outright fraud, and the serious threat of yet another prison-filling, costly, and socially-disruptive Prohibition. That this legislation passed both houses of Congress tells us that members either did not read it, or that they are complicit in protecting the cigarette cartel, including pesticide providers, dioxin-producing chlorine interests, and more---and their insurers and investors---from potentially historic levels of liabilities. This act ensures continued and even worse health harms, even to the children it purports to protect. If President Obama signs this, we will learn a lot about where he stands on those matters. At this point, it does not look good. See the bill at Open Congress: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s982/text Comments to Introductory “Findings” in Senate Bill 982 “The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act” 1. (The bill says use of tobacco is a “disease”.) Use of anything isn't a Disease. However, many diseases are possible or inevitable from exposures to smoke from any residues of the over 400 registered tobacco pesticides, dioxins from the chlorine pesticides and chlorine-bleached cigarette paper, radiation from the still-legal phosphate tobacco fertilizers, and any number of the untested and often toxic and carcinogenic non-tobacco cigarette additives. &quot;The nation's children&quot; have also been exposed to this stuff as young children and even as fetuses, by way of their unprotected, un-informed, and insufficiently-warned mothers who smoked what they thought, and were told, was tobacco or just tobacco. This legislation starts off with a gross inaccurate statement, and builds on that. 2 (“tobacco products” cause various diseases.) A consensus may exist within Chlorine and Corporate Insurance adjuncts of the &quot;medical communities&quot; that nature's own tobacco plant is the primary culprit...but they conveniently overlook that their own chlorine, and the resultant dioxins, and the pesticide residues as found on tobacco products, are already known causes of cancer, heart disease, and &quot;other serious adverse health effects&quot; ...many of which are impossible to be caused by smoke from any natural plant. 3. (Nicotine is addictive.) Nicotine may be addictive, but the important matter is...what one is addicted to, and if that is harmful. Nicotine is certifiably safe...as per many approved nicotine delivery products. But, if that nicotine attracts users to untold number of industrial tobacco pesticide residues, radiation from certain fertilizers, and any of about 1400 untested and often toxic/carcinogenic non-tobacco additives, that is an different matter. Nicotine just happens to also be medicinal, a point ignored in this bill. It's been long used for appetite suppression, alertness, stress relief, and digestive relief...and it is now known (as Big Pharm well knows) to be a symptomatic reliever for symptoms of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's...and as an anti-blood-clotting agent...and more. This Food and Drug Administration appears not to know of the drug aspects of the very substance it will “regulate”. Would it not be fine if the Pharms could take this public domain natural medicine from the public...for free? Correct answer is...Not. * This is not to mention that all the numerous additives, be they lethal or benign, add to the addiction. One experiences Withdrawal from anything one becomes accustomed to if it is withdrawn. A typical cigarette is perhaps the most multi-additive product on the shelves. For officials who let that happen, for decades, to now pretend to oppose &quot;addiction&quot; is appalling. 4. (Under-age users of “tobacco products”) They are not necessarily &quot;tobacco products&quot;, and the attempt to seem &quot;concerned&quot; about health of young people is patently absurd and contemptible...noting that this government has permitted chlorine substances, pesticides and bleached paper, for starters, that produce dioxin which is particularly harmful to children and young people---not to mention fetuses and pregnant mothers. 5. (Advertising) Yes...ads do contribute to use...by even the Anti-Smoking ads that make it &quot;bad&quot; and therefore &quot;cool&quot; to be rebellious... and to keep the idea of smoking Front and Center in young peoples' eyes. Again...who checked, and who says the cigarettes contain any tobacco? Even &quot;CSI&quot; in Diddlydink, Pennsylvania, would check to see what the cigarette in question was made of. Not U.S. Congress...or the FDA. They seem to actually believe the claims and implications of the most famously deceptive industry on the planet. * This and other provisions about ads are quite threatening to Constitutional Speech Protections. Even labeling products in a truthful, verifiable way (i.e. Contains No Pesticides, or Contains No Burn Accelerants, or Contains no Non-Tobacco Substances, or even Tobacco Only)...would be illegal. Truth illegal? 6). (Concern about adolescents) Who knows what adolescents used tobacco? Any number of low-end brands may contain no tobacco at all but, instead, fake tobacco made from industrial waste cellulose, camouflaged in patented ways to &quot;simulate&quot; tobacco, with shots of nicotine extract added. That is not tobacco, and the smoke cannot be tobacco smoke. * This ought to not so much be about &quot;curbing use&quot; by teens, but about &quot;curbing&quot; manufacturers' adulteration of so-called &quot;tobacco products&quot; with some of the most deadly industrial chemical and other non-tobacco substances on earth. 7. (Government has lacked authority) Such government entities are generally funded by, or personally invested in various parts of the cigarette industry...their insurers, investors, pharms that contribute cigarette pesticides and additives, agricultural conglomerates that provide so many crop product additives, assorted chlorine interests, their advertisers and PR firms, and whatnot...that it's an outrage that they retain a shred of credibility. Government has intentionally refused to wield authority. 8. (Oversight of “tobacco”) If this means the Cigarette Industry...or the Pesticide-Contaminated, Dioxin-Delivering, Radiation-Delivering Industry That Makes Smoking Products That May or May Not Contain a Shred of Tobacco...that is certainly not clear. Legitimate Law, as Legitimate Science, requires more clarity. In any case, the GAO already condemned &quot;lax government oversight&quot; of pesticide residues on tobacco. It is inconceivable that Congress and the FDA don't know. * Further, if the &quot;public at large&quot; &quot;recognizes &quot;tobacco dangers&quot;, it is only evidence of the complicity of the mass corporatized mainstream media. 9. (Native Americans) &quot;Indian Tribes&quot; are sovereign nations. This &quot;protect the kids&quot; scheme reeks of further, and endless, attempts to destroy that sovereignty...and to further apply a bit of Cultural Genocide in that native peoples have used tobacco for cultural, medicinal, social, religious and trade reasons for some ten thousand years. 10. (Interstate commerce, etc.) Well...if &quot;the economy&quot; pertains to the &quot;use&quot; of tobacco (instead of just business aspects)...that has implications even about Grow Your Own tobacco. Another &quot;tree&quot; that Thou Shalt Not Eat The Fruit Therefrom...apparently. This point seems to be a threat to States' Independence. Plus, the &quot;nation's economy&quot; here does not seem to apply to the PEOPLE of the Nation who will pay, by Passed-Along Fees On Cigarette Makers to administer this legislation. The &quot;economy&quot; of cigarette makers, their many adulterants providers, or any of their insurers or investors will be enhanced, not disrupted, by this act. (NB: Top health insurers invest heavily in cigarette manufacturing...and in tobacco pesticide producers.) 11. (Cigarette commerce has health costs) The costs and effects on health from typical &quot;Pesticide Pegs&quot;, &quot;Dioxin Dowels&quot; or &quot;Radiation Rods&quot; are not due to any &quot;interstate commerce&quot; or whatnot...but to official tolerance for the known human health-damaging contaminants of most smoking products. This point seems aimed at limiting States' Rights, and nabbing those who dare buy cigarettes where they are cheaper. Revered competition, not wanted here. 12. (FDA regulation for public interest) It is In The Public Interest that Congress and the FDA immediately forbid Any Untested, or Known Toxic or Carcinogenic, or Fire-Starting, or Kid-Attracting, or Addiction-Enhancing, Non-Tobacco component in smoking products. That would inconvenience the cigarette makers, their adulterants' suppliers, and all of their insurers and investors...but human health and life, and scientific and legal integrity, come first. 13. (Tobacco = Death) Since this really means that Pesticide-Contaminated, Chlorine-Adulterated, Dioxin-Delivering, Radiation-Contaminated, Multi-Ingredient Cigarettes are likely a cause of many premature deaths, statements that “tobacco kills” are unfounded and essentially lies. Nature's tobacco plant is not the villain. It is a conveniently-&quot;sinful&quot; scapegoat. Further, no studies seem to exist to disclose real or even likely effects of plain tobacco…and this bill requires no such tests. * Since, according to many U.S. Patents, all cigarettes are not necessarily made entirely or at all from tobacco, and since none of the studies used to justify this legislation seem to have checked to make sure that what they studied was, indeed, tobacco, it is impossible to understand any of the claims made here about tobacco. Have those Fake Tobacco products claimed any lives or caused any illnesses? Perhaps, but we do not know. 14. (Costs from disease) To say &quot;tobacco-induced disease&quot;, without noting the many non-tobacco cigarette adulterants (or the fake tobacco products) is scientifically fraudulent---an apparent attempt to exculpate the cigarette makers and the suppliers of the non-tobacco substances. To imply concern for youth is not credible in light of the FDA's lack of attention or even mention of the dioxin-emitting chlorine substances that are notoriously and especially harmful to children, fetuses, and pregnant mothers. The FDA does not even mention, much less forbid, added burn accelerants that are complicit in so many fires that take young lives. 15. (Ads seen by the young) This non-credible concern for young people reeks throughout the legislation. 16. (Cigarette makers spend money to attract smokers) In recent times, other private interests, often in the chlorine, insurance and pharmaceutical cartel, spent many millions deceiving the public that it is the tobacco plant, itself, that has caused widespread harms. That is as much of a patent lie as are any claims or suggestions from the cigarette makers, or the FDA or others, that a cigarette is automatically tobacco or just tobacco. 17. (Smoking portrayed as acceptable) Tobacco smoking has been socially acceptable, except in some religious communities, for centuries. It was purposefully and artificially made &quot;socially unacceptable&quot; by interests working to evade charges for contaminating tobacco so thoroughly, by insurers working to avoid costs of caring for those who may be victims of their own investment properties, and by those working to remove tobacco and nicotine from competition with certain patented nicotine-delivery products and other drugs that treat the same symptoms as does natural nicotine. 18. (Ads again) This bill says nothing about Fraudulent Advertising, which has been ubiquitous and tolerated by legislators at every level. Any advertising that suggests that a cigarette is simply tobacco is fraudulent, and any &quot;warning&quot; in those ads that fails to address the pesticides, dioxins, radiation, and known deadly non-tobacco cigarette constituents is harmfully inadequate. No warnings say “Contains Deadly Pesticide Residues”, for example. They don't want to confess to homicidal recklessness. 19. (Ads in sport venues) One medicinal characteristic of nicotine is that it relieves stress, be that stress in sporting situations or otherwise. For those who have allowed the dangerous and deadly non-tobacco substances to endanger uninformed, unprotected, insufficiently-warned athletes to now feign concerns about the linkage of smoking and sports is hypocritical and cruel. 20. (More about ads and kids) No concerns about children can be remotely believable when they come from those with the power to publicize, condemn, and prohibit the non-tobacco parts of smoking products that most harm children. As for “concerned” parties that were complicit in allowing those toxins…as they say, “jail is too good”. 21. (Editing out Bogie’s cig) This portends Constitutionally prohibited censorship. The arbitrary nature of the concerns about film depictions of &quot;tobacco products&quot;, but not depictions of an endless miasma of weapons, maiming, and horrific killings, or about use of illegal drugs, or of rapes, thefts, kidnappings, property damage, racism, adultery, fraud, reckless vehicle use, and so on, is clear evidence of unsound and unjust law. 22. (Ads and kids, yet again) It may be &quot;cigarette advertising&quot; but, if a product contains no tobacco, its advertising cannot be said to be &quot;tobacco advertising&quot; despite the camouflaged tobacco-like nature of the product. Further, if a product was simply composed of tobacco, that would achieve goals of reduced consumption because of the rougher less-appealing taste, the lack of addiction-enhancing additives, elimination of all non-tobacco health threats, and the adequate natural levels of nicotine. 23. (More on ads and kids) This is an arbitrary concern again, noting no end of advertisements for harmful foods, violent and sexual entertainments, and so forth, which are directed to and/or commonly seen by children…not to mention glorification of careers in the military. 24. (Ads and kids seem to be a priority) Every state has laws forbidding sale of cigarettes to minors. Discussion of price hikes concerning those who cannot purchase the products anyway, is essentially moot. Price hikes inescapably negatively affect supposedly non-targeted adults who are legally permitted to smoke. Further, excessive price and tax hikes can be tied directly to increases in crimes of theft, smuggling, and counterfeiting products. Also, consider that if one person quits smoking because price has doubled, say, and another person continues smoking at double the price, the same profits and &quot;sin taxes&quot; come in from only one pack of cigarettes. And, smoking is so appealing to many that they will forgo purchases of quality or sufficient foods or other necessities for themselves and children in order to afford smoking products. Even Napoleon said as much long ago. 25. ( Ads, ads, ads…) If advertising, and the warning labels, were required to disclose and address the actual nature of the products, and made a clear distinction between Tobacco, Adulterated Tobacco, and Fake Tobacco, that would have positive effects. 26. (Ads to be prohibited) This point is so general that it could prohibit truthful and educational advertising of the safest possible tobacco products---namely, those made with no pesticides, no chlorine content, no phosphate fertilizers, and no non-tobacco ingredients of any kind---save for the paper, which would be made from similarly organic tobacco or rice or the like. 27. (Ads ‘n’ Kids…again) In that this bill so callously ignores the child-harming pesticide chemicals, the dioxin-producing chlorine substances, the burn accelerants, and prosecution of those responsible, it is repulsive o see this repeated, feigned concern for young people. 28. (No graphics in ads, just text) If this &quot;text&quot; is permitted to refer to products as &quot;tobacco products&quot; when they may indeed be quite different Adulterated Tobacco Products, or Products Made With Fake Tobacco, that text would constitute deceit and fraud even more than would a picture of a tobacco leaf be on typical products. 29. (It’s the “tobacco industry’s” fault) Not to weaken any indictments of the so-called---self-labeled---&quot;tobacco industry&quot;, but it is the case that complicit government officials, all along, have known about, approved, ignored, failed to inform or warn about, failed to compensate anyone for, and have economically benefited from virtually everything the cigarette makers have done. Government officials, by purposeful inaction, perhaps for the sake of coveted “sin” taxes, campaign funds, and personal investments, are the ultimate parties responsible for any health crisis. They intentionally, for monetary reasons, let go of the leash of a dog that bit, and killed, millions of people. 30. (Ad provisions etc., ok by First Amendment) By specifying “tobacco products”, this point serves to exclude from regulation products made with &quot;tobacco substitute material&quot;. This is not about openly herbal cigarettes and the like, but about whatever brands may be designed in patented ways to &quot;simulate&quot; tobacco, including added nicotine extract, and which make no claims on packages about being made from tobacco or anything. The idea of denying organic tobacco providers the right to truthfully say that the products are o organic, with all implications of being “reduced risk”, has not been tested by any courts, Supreme or otherwise. 31. Save the Children) No material has been introduced showing any &quot;life-threatening health consequences associated with tobacco use&quot;…if that is to be taken as “caused by” tobacco use. ”Associated with” is a useless, meaningless term. Bonnie and Clyde could be said to be “associated with” cars, or fashionable hats, for that matter. The consequences are more accurately Caused By the pesticides and dioxins. None of the smoking products under study have been analyzed or defined for content. Industrially-poisoned tobacco cannot be considered identical or equivalent to plain tobacco. Concerns about &quot;addiction&quot; ring false. Government officials have for many decades allowed addiction-enhancing non-tobacco additives in order to encourage more smoking, more sales, and more regressive taxes. A few years back, ammonia was widely revealed to add to the addiction---but it remained, and remains, “legal”. 32. (Ad regulations not so restrictive) This is contradicted elsewhere in the legislation where claims or even suggestions that a product has &quot;reduced risk&quot; are severely restricted if not prohibited. Presumably that would apply even to products that are accurately labeled &quot;pesticide free&quot; or &quot;chlorine- and dioxin-free&quot; or &quot;no burn accelerants added&quot;. We do not know if a manufacturer could label one of its products &quot;contains pesticide residues&quot;, while making no statement either way on other products. Would silence on the matter constitute &quot;suggesting&quot; that another product is safer? Bad laws open themselves to such absurdities. Good laws do not. 33. (Dependence is a disease) Again, we do not know if it dependence on tobacco being discussed, or if it is dependence on products that may or may not contain tobacco and that are adulterated, with government approval, with any number of substances intended to increase dependence. In any case, it’s the effects of contents of typical cigarettes that constitute disease. 34. ( Just Say No) Cessation of smoking highly-contaminated products would be a legitimate step towards safety. But cessation of all tobacco use may have unsafe effects including heightened stress, decreased alertness, sudden sleepiness (such as while driving), digestive problems, weight gain, risk of blood clotting, and increased symptoms of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. If these points are not considered, this finding creates new public health dangers, and it indicates again that this Food &amp;amp; Drug Administration is ignoring the drug characteristics of the very drug it is to regulate. 35. (Tobacco linked to Terrorism) &quot;Illicit trade&quot; is directly a consequence not of tobacco or even manufactured tobacco products but of excessive prices and taxes. By this bill's failure to forbid cigarette firms from passing the &quot;user fee&quot; costs onto its customers, the bill increases the value of the products for illegal traders. Their “stock” just soared. This bill seems designed to drastically escalate not only the problems mentioned, but also crimes of theft (of cigarettes and/or money to buy cigarettes), smuggling, and counterfeiting. A way to increase crimes in prisons, for instance, is to restrict or ban smoking. It is interesting how often we are told that natural plant products (poppies, marijuana, coca, etc.) are “linked to terrorism”. We rarely hear that said about diamonds, cash, gold, the U.S. gun industry, etc. 36.(Only Big Corporations need apply) These &quot;rigorous criteria&quot; to prove a product will benefit the public will effectively make it economically impossible for small cigarette firms to grow and market organic tobacco, even if that may be for Native American religious uses. On the other hand, this is an arbitrary requirement. Pharmaceutical firms face no “rigorous criteria” to prove their products will benefit the public. Indeed, pharms “test” their own products and routinely find them to be “safe” and “beneficial”…though all too many have been found to be quite deadly. 37. ( Reduced risk products increase risk) This finding ignores that certain products go far further than &quot;purporting&quot; to reduce risk; they absolutely and certifiably DO reduce not only risk but inevitable harm. * Removal of asbestos from Kent filters reduced risk of mesothelioma. * US Government inspections (now perversely discontinued) of import tobacco. * And so-called &quot;fire-safe&quot; cigarettes are intended to reduce risk. This bill, by failing to so much as mention dioxin-producing chlorine, as a prime example, aids and abets those who are causing, and will continue to cause serious risks and harms. 38. (National Cancer Institute speaks) The NCI has been often exposed as being staffed with those who are linked to or part of cancer-causing industries such as chlorine and pesticide interests. NCI routinely ignores health threats from those products. * A not-so-laughable thing here is that, while condemning &quot;light&quot; cigarettes, the FDA has been empowered to lower nicotine levels to create the same things...which induce more smoking, deeper inhaling, and more exposures to harmful non-tobacco cigarette adulterants. 39. {More on “Light” cigarettes) With the usual full permission and knowledge of government, those &quot;lighter&quot; products contained even more (untested, often dangerous) non-tobacco additives than other products. The extra additives replaced flavors lost by lowered tars and nicotine levels. With full permission and cold indifferent silence from government officials, people who tried to mitigate harms were hit unknowingly with more harms than had they stayed with &quot;heavier&quot; cigarettes. The cruelty of that is significant. 40. (FDA can’t do everything) n other words...the FDA excuses itself from addressing even the most obvious and non-arguable risks---burn accelerants, dioxin-producing chlorine contaminants, carcinogenic radiation from fertilizers, DDT that might have slipped in, all of the 450 or so tobacco pesticides, addiction-enhancing substances and so on. The FDA makes itself an unholy trinity---three monkeys in one--no seeing, no hearing, or no discussing. 41. (A lie) No products claim to be &quot;less harmful&quot;. That's been illegal for a good while. This is a 'straw target'. One small cigarette maker, in the past, did claim that his organic cigarettes were safer. The feds shut him down. 42. Claims of reduced risk) Statements that products are Additive-Free or Organic are not unsubstantiated claims. But the FDA may construe such factual statements as &quot;implying&quot; reduced risk and then forbidding such information to be relayed, in any way, to customers. This, idiotically, counter-productively, would increase people's risk of harm from the pesticides, dioxins and the rest because customers would not know how to avoid them. By this thinking, hand-held filters or water pipes may be banned because they &quot;imply&quot; (and are) a reduced-risk smoking experience. Further, since many already know that the American Spirit and Nat Sherman brands are additive-free and/or organic, those very brands may be prohibited. Same thing with some foreign cigarettes from lands where dangerous, but U.S.-legal, adulterants are banned. Question: Is all this an Unintended Consequence? 43. (More on Reduced Risk) The intensity of the concerns about &quot;reduced risk&quot; indicate highly prioritized official efforts to assure that the pesticides, chlorine, fertilizers and other &quot;legal&quot; adulterants are not indicted by the existence of Good Example cigarettes that demonstrate the extreme harm, and liabilities, of the responsible adulterants industries. This law, by leaving the pesticides and fertilizer matters to the USDA, serves to maintain maximum risks to consumers. 44. ( FDA is the expert) The FDA claims to have &quot;scientific expertise&quot;, but it cannot even see the chlorine-bleached cigarette paper, it doesn't know that smoke from no plant can cause many or most so-called &quot;smoking related&quot; diseases, and it is unable to find even government material about things like fake tobacco (at the Patent Office), about dioxin in cigarettes (at the EPA), about the hundreds of pesticides (USDA and EPA), or about radioactive fertilizers (USDA and EPA…or the March 86 Readers’ Digest at the National Archives).. Mr. Magoo has more claims to expertise. 45, (Federal Trade Commission) The FTC has, for generations, let cigarette makers get away with the advertising and other deceptions about products being just tobacco, or tobacco at all. The FTC has coldly let consumers believe, quite wrongly, that they were just using tobacco…perhaps no different than Geronimo’s pipe-stuffing. This point tells us that these agencies cannot, or will not, effectively implement all provisions, but it doesn’t say which ones they plan to fail at. 46. ( FDA predicts that it can’t fully implement) The FDA is squirming to avoid the implication that ALL it regulates may be as inevitably harmful as the Pesticide Pegs, Dioxin Dowels, and Radiation Rods it refers to as &quot;tobacco products&quot;. Of course, tobacco is far from the only chlorine-contaminated, pesticide-contaminated product, with all sorts of Guinea-pigging experimental components, that it pretends to regulate. 47. (Court says Cig firms target youth) Dueling Court Cases: In July, 1998, US Federal court Judge William Osteen found that the EPA fraudulently cooked the books in its material about so-called &quot;Environmental Tobacco Smoke&quot;, or &quot;ETS&quot;...as if cigarette smoke they &quot;studied&quot; was from tobacco or just tobacco in any case. That discredited material has been used to justify virtually all, if not all, state and other municipal Smoking Ban laws. The EPA has not yet challenged that court's findings. One point being---we don't actually know yet if, or how much, so-called &quot;ETS&quot; is harmful to anyone...and that includes even the industrially-contaminated smoke. Smoke from plain tobacco may not even register on the Harm Scales. 48. (Cig firms target youth, again, and “tobacco settlement”) That &quot;settlement&quot; saved the cigarette industry not millions or billions of dollars but Trillions in even very conservatively-estimated potential liabilities...not even counting criminal penalties. Settlement money did not come from the cigarette firms. It came from price hikes on its victims. No states barred that. AND, to add insult to injury to injury... the states have no prohibition of sending that money right back in subsidies to the cigarette industry...the pesticides, chlorine, additives, advertising, investing, and other gang members. 49. (Court says Cig firms adjust nicotine levels) Since most cigarettes are made from &quot;reconstituted tobacco&quot; (paper made from tobacco trash mostly), and mixed and contaminated with any of untold hundreds of things, or made entirely without tobacco, of course cigarette makers add measured doses of nicotine extract in levels to achieve uniformity, and to maximize smoking...and &quot;sin tax&quot; revenues, again. That this U.S. court was, so to speak, &quot;shocked&quot;, is pathetic. Everything the cigarette makers did was fully sanctioned by actual or de facto government approval. This does not even begin to address the body of this FDA legislation. * Regarding the FDA power to lower nicotine levels...which will prompt more smoking, deeper inhaling, and more exposures to the toxic and carcinogenic non-tobacco elements: This would minimize any medicinal values of tobacco, leaving pretty much just the harmful characteristics. One day in the future, the FDA may find “minimal value and excess harm” from tobacco…the final excuse for Prohibition. * While nothing prevents cigarette makers from passing millions of dollars of “user fees” along to its customers, no such fees are to be charged to the rest of the cigarette industry---pesticides, fertilizers, additives, or advertisers. Those entities would be less able to evade costs by passing them to end consumers. The cigarette makers would not face any higher costs in those areas. * The legislation, though it says it will require the revelation of ingredients (it does not say “all”), forgets that the still-in-effect Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984 forbids the government from revealing “trade secret” ingredient lists. Media outlets report that ingredients are to be revealed---but to whom? Perhaps not to consumers, their liability attorneys, health professionals, or the general public. How doctors can properly treat patients without being allowed to know what poisoned them is a question. And more. It’s “historic” all right. Perhaps never before have so many deceits, unfounded presumptions, institutionalized threats to human health, evasions of liabilities and criminal charges, and omissions of relevant facts, been put together in one piece of legislation. It is also a historic revelation of the character of the vast majority of our Congress. Beyond that, this is Exhibit &quot;A&quot; in demonstrating the effectiveness of getting even the most illegitimate laws passed if they are packaged in a way that appears to “protect the kids”, or be “for our safety”, and just happens to have an unpopular villain.

<p>All Bad Legislation comes wearing a halo. That's how about 60 years of Reefer Madness drug war atrocities began. The just-passed law (not signed yet) giving the FDA power to "regulate tobacco" is not what mainstream media, or public officials tell us. This is Reefer Madness II, concocted by the same industries who did RM I...important whether or not one cares about "smoking" of any plant.</p> <!--break--><p>Forty Nine Reasons for Obama Not to sign the FDA "tobacco" bill---</p> <p>Every one of the 49 "findings" that justify the just-passed FDA "tobacco regulation" bill have problems...some quite basic. That the legislation is about control of tobacco, not control of manufacturers of cigarettes, is only one of endless rhetorical oddities.</p> <p>This is far from being just about “smoking”, pro or con. It concerns matters relating to pesticides, chlorine and dioxins, non-organic agriculture, the “war on organics”, pharmaceuticals, public health, government conflicts of interest with private industries, questionable science, media complicity, threats to Free Speech, intrusions into Indian Sovereignty, states’ rights, industrial evasion of liabilities, insurer evasions of responsibilities for their investment properties (with that link to Single Payer), outright fraud, and the serious threat of yet another prison-filling, costly, and socially-disruptive Prohibition. That this legislation passed both houses of Congress tells us that members either did not read it, or that they are complicit in protecting the cigarette cartel, including pesticide providers, dioxin-producing chlorine interests, and more---and their insurers and investors---from potentially historic levels of liabilities. This act ensures continued and even worse health harms, even to the children it purports to protect.<br /> If President Obama signs this, we will learn a lot about where he stands on those matters. At this point, it does not look good.</p> <p>See the bill at Open Congress:<br /> <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s982/text">http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s982/text</a></p> <p>Comments to Introductory “Findings” in Senate Bill 982<br /> “The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act”</p> <p>1. (The bill says use of tobacco is a “disease”.) Use of anything isn't a Disease. However, many diseases are possible or inevitable from exposures to smoke from any residues of the over 400 registered tobacco pesticides, dioxins from the chlorine pesticides and chlorine-bleached cigarette paper, radiation from the still-legal phosphate tobacco fertilizers, and any number of the untested and often toxic and carcinogenic non-tobacco cigarette additives.</p> <p>"The nation's children" have also been exposed to this stuff as young children and even as fetuses, by way of their unprotected, un-informed, and insufficiently-warned mothers who smoked what they thought, and were told, was tobacco or just tobacco.<br /> This legislation starts off with a gross inaccurate statement, and builds on that.</p> <p>2 (“tobacco products” cause various diseases.) A consensus may exist within Chlorine and Corporate Insurance adjuncts of the "medical communities" that nature's own tobacco plant is the primary culprit...but they conveniently overlook that their own chlorine, and the resultant dioxins, and the pesticide residues as found on tobacco products, are already known causes of cancer, heart disease, and "other serious adverse health effects" ...many of which are impossible to be caused by smoke from any natural plant.</p> <p>3. (Nicotine is addictive.) Nicotine may be addictive, but the important matter is...what one is addicted to, and if that is harmful. Nicotine is certifiably safe...as per many approved nicotine delivery products.<br /> But, if that nicotine attracts users to untold number of industrial tobacco pesticide residues, radiation from certain fertilizers, and any of about 1400 untested and often toxic/carcinogenic non-tobacco additives, that is an different matter.</p> <p>Nicotine just happens to also be medicinal, a point ignored in this bill. It's been long used for appetite suppression, alertness, stress relief, and digestive relief...and it is now known (as Big Pharm well knows) to be a symptomatic reliever for symptoms of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's...and as an anti-blood-clotting agent...and more. This Food and Drug Administration appears not to know of the drug aspects of the very substance it will “regulate”. Would it not be fine if the Pharms could take this public domain natural medicine from the public...for free? Correct answer is...Not.<br /> * This is not to mention that all the numerous additives, be they lethal or benign, add to the addiction. One experiences Withdrawal from anything one becomes accustomed to if it is withdrawn. A typical cigarette is perhaps the most multi-additive product on the shelves. For officials who let that happen, for decades, to now pretend to oppose "addiction" is appalling.</p> <p>4. (Under-age users of “tobacco products”) They are not necessarily "tobacco products", and the attempt to seem "concerned" about health of young people is patently absurd and contemptible...noting that this government has permitted chlorine substances, pesticides and bleached paper, for starters, that produce dioxin which is particularly harmful to children and young people---not to mention fetuses and pregnant mothers.</p> <p>5. (Advertising) Yes...ads do contribute to use...by even the Anti-Smoking ads that make it "bad" and therefore "cool" to be rebellious... and to keep the idea of smoking Front and Center in young peoples' eyes.<br /> Again...who checked, and who says the cigarettes contain any tobacco? Even "CSI" in Diddlydink, Pennsylvania, would check to see what the cigarette in question was made of. Not U.S. Congress...or the FDA. They seem to actually believe the claims and implications of the most famously deceptive industry on the planet.<br /> * This and other provisions about ads are quite threatening to Constitutional Speech Protections. Even labeling products in a truthful, verifiable way (i.e. Contains No Pesticides, or Contains No Burn Accelerants, or Contains no Non-Tobacco Substances, or even Tobacco Only)...would be illegal. Truth illegal?</p> <p>6). (Concern about adolescents) Who knows what adolescents used tobacco? Any number of low-end brands may contain no tobacco at all but, instead, fake tobacco made from industrial waste cellulose, camouflaged in patented ways to "simulate" tobacco, with shots of nicotine extract added. That is not tobacco, and the smoke cannot be tobacco smoke.<br /> * This ought to not so much be about "curbing use" by teens, but about "curbing" manufacturers' adulteration of so-called "tobacco products" with some of the most deadly industrial chemical and other non-tobacco substances on earth.</p> <p>7. (Government has lacked authority) Such government entities are generally funded by, or personally invested in various parts of the cigarette industry...their insurers, investors, pharms that contribute cigarette pesticides and additives, agricultural conglomerates that provide so many crop product additives, assorted chlorine interests, their advertisers and PR firms, and whatnot...that it's an outrage that they retain a shred of credibility. Government has intentionally refused to wield authority.</p> <p>8. (Oversight of “tobacco”) If this means the Cigarette Industry...or the Pesticide-Contaminated, Dioxin-Delivering, Radiation-Delivering Industry That Makes Smoking Products That May or May Not Contain a Shred of Tobacco...that is certainly not clear. Legitimate Law, as Legitimate Science, requires more clarity.<br /> In any case, the GAO already condemned "lax government oversight" of pesticide residues on tobacco. It is inconceivable that Congress and the FDA don't know.</p> <p>* Further, if the "public at large" "recognizes "tobacco dangers", it is only evidence of the complicity of the mass corporatized mainstream media.</p> <p>9. (Native Americans) "Indian Tribes" are sovereign nations. This "protect the kids" scheme reeks of further, and endless, attempts to destroy that sovereignty...and to further apply a bit of Cultural Genocide in that native peoples have used tobacco for cultural, medicinal, social, religious and trade reasons for some ten thousand years.</p> <p>10. (Interstate commerce, etc.) Well...if "the economy" pertains to the "use" of tobacco (instead of just business aspects)...that has implications even about Grow Your Own tobacco. Another "tree" that Thou Shalt Not Eat The Fruit Therefrom...apparently. This point seems to be a threat to States' Independence. Plus, the "nation's economy" here does not seem to apply to the PEOPLE of the Nation who will pay, by Passed-Along Fees On Cigarette Makers to administer this legislation.<br /> The "economy" of cigarette makers, their many adulterants providers, or any of their insurers or investors will be enhanced, not disrupted, by this act.<br /> (NB: Top health insurers invest heavily in cigarette manufacturing...and in tobacco pesticide producers.)</p> <p>11. (Cigarette commerce has health costs) The costs and effects on health from typical "Pesticide Pegs", "Dioxin Dowels" or "Radiation Rods" are not due to any "interstate commerce" or whatnot...but to official tolerance for the known human health-damaging contaminants of most smoking products. This point seems aimed at limiting States' Rights, and nabbing those who dare buy cigarettes where they are cheaper. Revered competition, not wanted here.</p> <p>12. (FDA regulation for public interest) It is In The Public Interest that Congress and the FDA immediately forbid Any Untested, or Known Toxic or Carcinogenic, or Fire-Starting, or Kid-Attracting, or Addiction-Enhancing, Non-Tobacco component in smoking products. That would inconvenience the cigarette makers, their adulterants' suppliers, and all of their insurers and investors...but human health and life, and scientific and legal integrity, come first.</p> <p>13. (Tobacco = Death) Since this really means that Pesticide-Contaminated, Chlorine-Adulterated, Dioxin-Delivering, Radiation-Contaminated, Multi-Ingredient Cigarettes are likely a cause of many premature deaths, statements that “tobacco kills” are unfounded and essentially lies. Nature's tobacco plant is not the villain. It is a conveniently-"sinful" scapegoat. Further, no studies seem to exist to disclose real or even likely effects of plain tobacco…and this bill requires no such tests.<br /> * Since, according to many U.S. Patents, all cigarettes are not necessarily made entirely or at all from tobacco, and since none of the studies used to justify this legislation seem to have checked to make sure that what they studied was, indeed, tobacco, it is impossible to understand any of the claims made here about tobacco. Have those Fake Tobacco products claimed any lives or caused any illnesses? Perhaps, but we do not know.</p> <p>14. (Costs from disease) To say "tobacco-induced disease", without noting the many non-tobacco cigarette adulterants (or the fake tobacco products) is scientifically fraudulent---an apparent attempt to exculpate the cigarette makers and the suppliers of the non-tobacco substances.<br /> To imply concern for youth is not credible in light of the FDA's lack of attention or even mention of the dioxin-emitting chlorine substances that are notoriously and especially harmful to children, fetuses, and pregnant mothers. The FDA does not even mention, much less forbid, added burn accelerants that are complicit in so many fires that take young lives.</p> <p>15. (Ads seen by the young) This non-credible concern for young people reeks throughout the legislation.</p> <p>16. (Cigarette makers spend money to attract smokers) In recent times, other private interests, often in the chlorine, insurance and pharmaceutical cartel, spent many millions deceiving the public that it is the tobacco plant, itself, that has caused widespread harms. That is as much of a patent lie as are any claims or suggestions from the cigarette makers, or the FDA or others, that a cigarette is automatically tobacco or just tobacco.</p> <p>17. (Smoking portrayed as acceptable) Tobacco smoking has been socially acceptable, except in some religious communities, for centuries. It was purposefully and artificially made "socially unacceptable" by interests working to evade charges for contaminating tobacco so thoroughly, by insurers working to avoid costs of caring for those who may be victims of their own investment properties, and by those working to remove tobacco and nicotine from competition with certain patented nicotine-delivery products and other drugs that treat the same symptoms as does natural nicotine.</p> <p>18. (Ads again) This bill says nothing about Fraudulent Advertising, which has been ubiquitous and tolerated by legislators at every level. Any advertising that suggests that a cigarette is simply tobacco is fraudulent, and any "warning" in those ads that fails to address the pesticides, dioxins, radiation, and known deadly non-tobacco cigarette constituents is harmfully inadequate. No warnings say “Contains Deadly Pesticide Residues”, for example. They don't want to confess to homicidal recklessness.</p> <p>19. (Ads in sport venues) One medicinal characteristic of nicotine is that it relieves stress, be that stress in sporting situations or otherwise. For those who have allowed the dangerous and deadly non-tobacco substances to endanger uninformed, unprotected, insufficiently-warned athletes to now feign concerns about the linkage of smoking and sports is hypocritical and cruel.</p> <p>20. (More about ads and kids) No concerns about children can be remotely believable when they come from those with the power to publicize, condemn, and prohibit the non-tobacco parts of smoking products that most harm children. As for “concerned” parties that were complicit in allowing those toxins…as they say, “jail is too good”.</p> <p>21. (Editing out Bogie’s cig) This portends Constitutionally prohibited censorship. The arbitrary nature of the concerns about film depictions of "tobacco products", but not depictions of an endless miasma of weapons, maiming, and horrific killings, or about use of illegal drugs, or of rapes, thefts, kidnappings, property damage, racism, adultery, fraud, reckless vehicle use, and so on, is clear evidence of unsound and unjust law.</p> <p>22. (Ads and kids, yet again) It may be "cigarette advertising" but, if a product contains no tobacco, its advertising cannot be said to be "tobacco advertising" despite the camouflaged tobacco-like nature of the product. Further, if a product was simply composed of tobacco, that would achieve goals of reduced consumption because of the rougher less-appealing taste, the lack of addiction-enhancing additives, elimination of all non-tobacco health threats, and the adequate natural levels of nicotine.</p> <p>23. (More on ads and kids) This is an arbitrary concern again, noting no end of advertisements for harmful foods, violent and sexual entertainments, and so forth, which are directed to and/or commonly seen by children…not to mention glorification of careers in the military.</p> <p>24. (Ads and kids seem to be a priority) Every state has laws forbidding sale of cigarettes to minors. Discussion of price hikes concerning those who cannot purchase the products anyway, is essentially moot. Price hikes inescapably negatively affect supposedly non-targeted adults who are legally permitted to smoke.<br /> Further, excessive price and tax hikes can be tied directly to increases in crimes of theft, smuggling, and counterfeiting products. Also, consider that if one person quits smoking because price has doubled, say, and another person continues smoking at double the price, the same profits and "sin taxes" come in from only one pack of cigarettes. And, smoking is so appealing to many that they will forgo purchases of quality or sufficient foods or other necessities for themselves and children in order to afford smoking products. Even Napoleon said as much long ago.</p> <p>25. ( Ads, ads, ads…) If advertising, and the warning labels, were required to disclose and address the actual nature of the products, and made a clear distinction between Tobacco, Adulterated Tobacco, and Fake Tobacco, that would have positive effects.</p> <p>26. (Ads to be prohibited) This point is so general that it could prohibit truthful and educational advertising of the safest possible tobacco products---namely, those made with no pesticides, no chlorine content, no phosphate fertilizers, and no non-tobacco ingredients of any kind---save for the paper, which would be made from similarly organic tobacco or rice or the like.</p> <p>27. (Ads ‘n’ Kids…again) In that this bill so callously ignores the child-harming pesticide chemicals, the dioxin-producing chlorine substances, the burn accelerants, and prosecution of those responsible, it is repulsive o see this repeated, feigned concern for young people.</p> <p>28. (No graphics in ads, just text) If this "text" is permitted to refer to products as "tobacco products" when they may indeed be quite different Adulterated Tobacco Products, or Products Made With Fake Tobacco, that text would constitute deceit and fraud even more than would a picture of a tobacco leaf be on typical products.</p> <p>29. (It’s the “tobacco industry’s” fault) Not to weaken any indictments of the so-called---self-labeled---"tobacco industry", but it is the case that complicit government officials, all along, have known about, approved, ignored, failed to inform or warn about, failed to compensate anyone for, and have economically benefited from virtually everything the cigarette makers have done.<br /> Government officials, by purposeful inaction, perhaps for the sake of coveted “sin” taxes, campaign funds, and personal investments, are the ultimate parties responsible for any health crisis. They intentionally, for monetary reasons, let go of the leash of a dog that bit, and killed, millions of people.</p> <p>30. (Ad provisions etc., ok by First Amendment) By specifying “tobacco products”, this point serves to exclude from regulation products made with "tobacco substitute material". This is not about openly herbal cigarettes and the like, but about whatever brands may be designed in patented ways to "simulate" tobacco, including added nicotine extract, and which make no claims on packages about being made from tobacco or anything. The idea of denying organic tobacco providers the right to truthfully say that the products are o organic, with all implications of being “reduced risk”, has not been tested by any courts, Supreme or otherwise.</p> <p>31. Save the Children) No material has been introduced showing any "life-threatening health consequences associated with tobacco use"…if that is to be taken as “caused by” tobacco use. ”Associated with” is a useless, meaningless term. Bonnie and Clyde could be said to be “associated with” cars, or fashionable hats, for that matter.<br /> The consequences are more accurately Caused By the pesticides and dioxins. None of the smoking products under study have been analyzed or defined for content. Industrially-poisoned tobacco cannot be considered identical or equivalent to plain tobacco. Concerns about "addiction" ring false. Government officials have for many decades allowed addiction-enhancing non-tobacco additives in order to encourage more smoking, more sales, and more regressive taxes. A few years back, ammonia was widely revealed to add to the addiction---but it remained, and remains, “legal”.</p> <p>32. (Ad regulations not so restrictive) This is contradicted elsewhere in the legislation where claims or even suggestions that a product has "reduced risk" are severely restricted if not prohibited. Presumably that would apply even to products that are accurately labeled "pesticide free" or "chlorine- and dioxin-free" or "no burn accelerants added". We do not know if a manufacturer could label one of its products "contains pesticide residues", while making no statement either way on other products. Would silence on the matter constitute "suggesting" that another product is safer? Bad laws open themselves to such absurdities. Good laws do not.</p> <p>33. (Dependence is a disease) Again, we do not know if it dependence on tobacco being discussed, or if it is dependence on products that may or may not contain tobacco and that are adulterated, with government approval, with any number of substances intended to increase dependence. In any case, it’s the effects of contents of typical cigarettes that constitute disease.</p> <p>34. ( Just Say No) Cessation of smoking highly-contaminated products would be a legitimate step towards safety. But cessation of all tobacco use may have unsafe effects including heightened stress, decreased alertness, sudden sleepiness (such as while driving), digestive problems, weight gain, risk of blood clotting, and increased symptoms of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. If these points are not considered, this finding creates new public health dangers, and it indicates again that this Food &amp;amp; Drug Administration is ignoring the drug characteristics of the very drug it is to regulate.</p> <p>35. (Tobacco linked to Terrorism) "Illicit trade" is directly a consequence not of tobacco or even manufactured tobacco products but of excessive prices and taxes. By this bill's failure to forbid cigarette firms from passing the "user fee" costs onto its customers, the bill increases the value of the products for illegal traders. Their “stock” just soared. This bill seems designed to drastically escalate not only the problems mentioned, but also crimes of theft (of cigarettes and/or money to buy cigarettes), smuggling, and counterfeiting. A way to increase crimes in prisons, for instance, is to restrict or ban smoking. It is interesting how often we are told that natural plant products (poppies, marijuana, coca, etc.) are “linked to terrorism”. We rarely hear that said about diamonds, cash, gold, the U.S. gun industry, etc.</p> <p>36.(Only Big Corporations need apply) These "rigorous criteria" to prove a product will benefit the public will effectively make it economically impossible for small cigarette firms to grow and market organic tobacco, even if that may be for Native American religious uses. On the other hand, this is an arbitrary requirement. Pharmaceutical firms face no “rigorous criteria” to prove their products will benefit the public. Indeed, pharms “test” their own products and routinely find them to be “safe” and “beneficial”…though all too many have been found to be quite deadly.</p> <p>37. ( Reduced risk products increase risk) This finding ignores that certain products go far further than "purporting" to reduce risk; they absolutely and certifiably DO reduce not only risk but inevitable harm.<br /> * Removal of asbestos from Kent filters reduced risk of mesothelioma.<br /> * US Government inspections (now perversely discontinued) of import tobacco.<br /> * And so-called "fire-safe" cigarettes are intended to reduce risk.<br /> This bill, by failing to so much as mention dioxin-producing chlorine, as a prime example, aids and abets those who are causing, and will continue to cause serious risks and harms.</p> <p>38. (National Cancer Institute speaks) The NCI has been often exposed as being staffed with those who are linked to or part of cancer-causing industries such as chlorine and pesticide interests. NCI routinely ignores health threats from those products.<br /> * A not-so-laughable thing here is that, while condemning "light" cigarettes, the FDA has been empowered to lower nicotine levels to create the same things...which induce more smoking, deeper inhaling, and more exposures to harmful non-tobacco cigarette adulterants.</p> <p>39. {More on “Light” cigarettes) With the usual full permission and knowledge of government, those "lighter" products contained even more (untested, often dangerous) non-tobacco additives than other products. The extra additives replaced flavors lost by lowered tars and nicotine levels. With full permission and cold indifferent silence from<br /> government officials, people who tried to mitigate harms were hit unknowingly with more harms than had they stayed with "heavier" cigarettes. The cruelty of that is significant.</p> <p>40. (FDA can’t do everything) n other words...the FDA excuses itself from addressing even the most obvious and non-arguable risks---burn accelerants, dioxin-producing chlorine contaminants, carcinogenic radiation from fertilizers, DDT that might have slipped in, all of the 450 or so tobacco pesticides, addiction-enhancing substances and so on.<br /> The FDA makes itself an unholy trinity---three monkeys in one--no seeing, no hearing, or no discussing.</p> <p>41. (A lie) No products claim to be "less harmful". That's been illegal for a good while. This is a 'straw target'. One small cigarette maker, in the past, did claim that his organic cigarettes were safer. The feds shut him down.</p> <p>42. Claims of reduced risk) Statements that products are Additive-Free or Organic are not unsubstantiated claims. But the FDA may construe such factual statements as "implying" reduced risk and then forbidding such information to be relayed, in any way, to customers. This, idiotically, counter-productively, would increase people's risk of harm from the pesticides, dioxins and the rest because customers would not know how to avoid them.<br /> By this thinking, hand-held filters or water pipes may be banned because they "imply" (and are) a reduced-risk smoking experience.<br /> Further, since many already know that the American Spirit and Nat Sherman brands are additive-free and/or organic, those very brands may be prohibited. Same thing with some foreign cigarettes from lands where dangerous, but U.S.-legal, adulterants are banned. Question: Is all this an Unintended Consequence?</p> <p>43. (More on Reduced Risk) The intensity of the concerns about "reduced risk" indicate highly prioritized official efforts to assure that the pesticides, chlorine, fertilizers and other "legal" adulterants are not indicted by the existence of Good Example cigarettes that demonstrate the extreme harm, and liabilities, of the responsible adulterants industries. This law, by leaving the pesticides and fertilizer matters to the USDA, serves to maintain maximum risks to consumers.</p> <p>44. ( FDA is the expert) The FDA claims to have "scientific expertise", but it cannot even see the chlorine-bleached cigarette paper, it doesn't know that smoke from no plant can cause many or most so-called "smoking related" diseases, and it is unable to find even government material about things like fake tobacco (at the Patent Office), about dioxin in cigarettes (at the EPA), about the hundreds of pesticides (USDA and EPA), or about radioactive fertilizers (USDA and EPA…or the March 86 Readers’ Digest at the National Archives).. Mr. Magoo has more claims to expertise.</p> <p>45, (Federal Trade Commission) The FTC has, for generations, let cigarette makers get away with the advertising and other deceptions about products being just tobacco, or tobacco at all. The FTC has coldly let consumers believe, quite wrongly, that they were just using tobacco…perhaps no different than Geronimo’s pipe-stuffing. This point tells us that these agencies cannot, or will not, effectively implement all provisions, but it doesn’t say which ones they plan to fail at.</p> <p>46. ( FDA predicts that it can’t fully implement) The FDA is squirming to avoid the implication that ALL it regulates may be as inevitably harmful as the Pesticide Pegs, Dioxin Dowels, and Radiation Rods it refers to as "tobacco products". Of course, tobacco is far from the only chlorine-contaminated, pesticide-contaminated product, with all sorts of Guinea-pigging experimental components, that it pretends to regulate.</p> <p>47. (Court says Cig firms target youth) Dueling Court Cases: In July, 1998, US Federal court Judge William Osteen found that the EPA fraudulently cooked the books in its material about so-called "Environmental Tobacco Smoke", or "ETS"...as if cigarette smoke they "studied" was from tobacco or just tobacco in any case. That discredited material has been used to justify virtually all, if not all, state and other municipal Smoking Ban laws. The EPA has not yet challenged that court's findings. One point being---we don't actually know yet if, or how much, so-called "ETS" is harmful to anyone...and that includes even the industrially-contaminated smoke. Smoke from plain tobacco may not even register on the Harm Scales.</p> <p>48. (Cig firms target youth, again, and “tobacco settlement”) That "settlement" saved the cigarette industry not millions or billions of dollars but Trillions in even very conservatively-estimated potential liabilities...not even counting criminal penalties. Settlement money did not come from the cigarette firms. It came from price hikes on its victims. No states barred that. AND, to add insult to injury to injury... the states have no prohibition of sending that money right back in subsidies to the cigarette industry...the pesticides, chlorine, additives, advertising, investing, and other gang members.</p> <p>49. (Court says Cig firms adjust nicotine levels) Since most cigarettes are made from "reconstituted tobacco" (paper made from tobacco trash mostly), and mixed and contaminated with any of untold hundreds of things, or made entirely without tobacco, of course cigarette makers add measured doses of nicotine extract in levels to achieve uniformity, and to maximize smoking...and "sin tax" revenues, again. That this U.S. court was, so to speak, "shocked", is pathetic. Everything the cigarette makers did was fully sanctioned by actual or de facto government approval.</p> <p>This does not even begin to address the body of this FDA legislation.</p> <p>* Regarding the FDA power to lower nicotine levels...which will prompt more smoking, deeper inhaling, and more exposures to the toxic and carcinogenic non-tobacco elements: This would minimize any medicinal values of tobacco, leaving pretty much just the harmful characteristics. One day in the future, the FDA may find “minimal value and excess harm”<br /> from tobacco…the final excuse for Prohibition.</p> <p>* While nothing prevents cigarette makers from passing millions of dollars of “user fees” along to its customers, no such fees are to be charged to the rest of the cigarette industry---pesticides, fertilizers, additives, or advertisers. Those entities would be less able to evade costs by passing them to end consumers. The cigarette makers would not face any higher costs in those areas.</p> <p>* The legislation, though it says it will require the revelation of ingredients (it does not say “all”), forgets that the still-in-effect Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984 forbids the government from revealing “trade secret” ingredient lists. Media outlets report that ingredients are to be revealed---but to whom? Perhaps not to consumers, their liability attorneys, health professionals, or the general public. How doctors can properly treat patients without being allowed to know what poisoned them is a question.</p> <p>And more. It’s “historic” all right. Perhaps never before have so many deceits, unfounded presumptions, institutionalized threats to human health, evasions of liabilities and criminal charges, and omissions of relevant facts, been put together in one piece of legislation. It is also a historic revelation of the character of the vast majority of our Congress.</p> <p>Beyond that, this is Exhibit "A" in demonstrating the effectiveness of getting even the most illegitimate laws passed if they are packaged in a way that appears to “protect the kids”, or be “for our safety”, and just happens to have an unpopular villain.</p>