Perhaps you should read some of the articles provided through the Non-governmental Institute referenced in the conference. Over 9,000 phd's have signed onto the petition rejecting the anthropogenic climate change theory. Environmental alarmist like Al Gore are supported without question in your blog, but your mind closes when evidence appears from other sources.
I am registered professional engineer with some understanding of the issues, and I believe politics has surplanted science in the United Nations and in your blog.
But what if the scientists are right? What will the world be like in 100 years? There's a very long history in American and English literature of real social change coming about because of a powerful novel. Fiction may be the best way to seriously explore issues that generate so much controversy. It's too easy to deny reality otherwise.
Nothing on earth is perfectly risk-free, if that's what "okay" means. But, to all appearances, the risks and harms of smoking plain, unadulterated, natural tobacco have not been determined. No matter. It's to be banned anyway, essentially without a trial.
No studies that are findable, or which have been used to make laws, or to determine causes of a seemingly endless litany of "smoking related" diseases, have so much as described or analyzed the "tobacco", the "cigarette", or the "smoke" they supposedly studied. They may say "tobacco", but they mean Highly Contaminated, Highly Processed Smoking Products. That is "Spiked Tobacco", to use John leCarre's term, not "tobacco".
Such research ignores brand names, and ignores whether or not the tobacco (or other filler material) is highly adulterated with industrial toxins and carcinogens. Such research even fails to be clear if the smoke even comes from tobacco...or from reconstituted tobacco (a form of paper)...or from "tobacco substitute material" made entirely from industrial waste cellulose.
We Do Not Know What They Studied.
If researchers planned to study, say, Chlorine-Contaminated Cigarettes, the chances of them getting a cent of grant money from chlorine industries like pharmaceuticals or big chemicals or the like would be below zero.
It is a good guess, though, that a study of use of plain tobacco would show not only the benefits (re/ stress, appetite suppression, digestive relief, alertness, etc.) but such minimal risk or harm (as compared to typical products) as to constitute an earth-shaking indictment of not only the makers of such contaminated cigarettes, and the suppliers of those non-tobacco things (pesticides, dioxin-producing chlorine, the rads, etc.), but also the complicit public officials who've gone AWOL on their sworn and paid duties to protect the public from exactly such risks, harms, and frauds. Those entities, certifiably psychopathic if you think about it, now wear the halo of "anti tobacco" to keep themselves out of prison, and the complicit 'too-big-to-fail' businesses out of bankruptcy.
We are to let the chlorine, pesticides, fertilizer industries, etc., and the cigarette makers, evade massive criminal and liability hooks by unjustly putting the blame, absurdly in many cases, on the natural public-domain tobacco plant...and on those who think and are still told they are just smoking tobacco.
The Heritage Foundation, ostensibly an opponent of the cigarette industry, shows itself again to be very helpful to its "enemy" by using that industry's top marketing trick, calling itself the "tobacco industry"...as if what they sell is just tobacco, or, in some cases, tobacco at all.
If the Heritage Foundation truly wanted to expose the industry for its recklessness, harmfulness, and fraudulent behavior, it ought to simply describe the products accurately and thoroughly and repeatedly as being industrial concoctions that, once they are processed and adulterated, are no more legitimately called "tobacco" than a handgun might be called “iron ore”.
The Heritage Foundation helps the industry by ignoring the many toxic and cancer-causing pesticide residues that contaminate typical products, without a word of condemnation or specific warning even from public officials…with one largely-ignored exception---Search: "GAO tobacco pesticides", for starters.
Heritage helps again by ignoring that most cigarettes are adulterated with any of about 1400 untested, often toxic, non-tobacco additives. It helps again by ignoring dioxins in the smoke from the still-legal use of chlorine pesticides and chlorine-bleached paper, and it helps even further by ignoring the PO-210 radiation from the still-legal (again) use of certain phosphate tobacco fertilizers.
For the Heritage Foundation to call that "tobacco" is shown most absurd by the fact that any number of low-end cigarettes may not contain a single shred of tobacco but, instead, may be made from all sorts of industrial waste cellulose camouflaged to seem to be tobacco…with measured shots of nicotine extract added, of course.
As the cigarette makers deceive by calling their products "tobacco", Heritage (and the likes of "Tobacco Free Kids", etc.) deceives by blaming tobacco, a natural public domain plant, for rafts of diseases, most which could not possibly be caused by smoke from any plant---most which are already well-known to be effects of exposure to pesticides, dioxins, and that radiation.
The Heritage Foundation seeks to scapegoat nature for the crimes of industry, in this case, it's pretend enemy, makers of typical cigarettes---not to mention the complicit suppliers of all the toxic, cancer causing, fire starting, kid attracting and addiction-enhancing non-tobacco adulterants.
The Heritage Foundation, ostensibly an opponent of the cigarette industry, shows itself again to be very helpful to its "enemy" by using that industry's top marketing trick, calling itself the "tobacco industry"...as if what they sell is just tobacco, or, in some cases, tobacco at all.
If the Heritage Foundation truly wanted to expose the industry for its recklessness, harmfulness, and fraudulent behavior, it ought to simply describe the products accurately and thoroughly and repeatedly as being industrial concoctions that, once they are processed and adulterated, are no more legitimately called "tobacco" than a handgun might be called “iron ore”.
The Heritage Foundation helps the industry by ignoring the many toxic and cancer-causing pesticide residues that contaminate typical products, without a word of condemnation or specific warning even from public officials…with one largely-ignored exception---Search: "GAO tobacco pesticides", for starters.
Heritage helps again by ignoring that most cigarettes are adulterated with any of about 1400 untested, often toxic, non-tobacco additives. It helps again by ignoring dioxins in the smoke from the still-legal use of chlorine pesticides and chlorine-bleached paper, and it helps even further by ignoring the PO-210 radiation from the still-legal (again) use of certain phosphate tobacco fertilizers.
For the Heritage Foundation to call that "tobacco" is shown most absurd by the fact that any number of low-end cigarettes may not contain a single shred of tobacco but, instead, may be made from all sorts of industrial waste cellulose camouflaged to seem to be tobacco…with measured shots of nicotine extract added, of course.
As the cigarette makers deceive by calling their products "tobacco", Heritage (and the likes of "Tobacco Free Kids", etc.) deceives by blaming tobacco, a natural public domain plant, for rafts of diseases, most which could not possibly be caused by smoke from any plant---most which are already well-known to be effects of exposure to pesticides, dioxins, and that radiation.
The Heritage Foundation seeks to scapegoat nature for the crimes of industry, in this case, it's pretend enemy, makers of typical cigarettes---not to mention the complicit suppliers of all the toxic, cancer causing, fire starting, kid attracting and addiction-enhancing non-tobacco adulterants.
Pages