Tobacco project/research/video

abstract

Dagobah Resident
Greetings. It's been a while since my last post here (i've been on "crackbook" a lot lately) but some may know that i'm wanting to do a video where i break down the tobacco situation more objectively.

Every question, as daniel said, leads to five more, so this is all going to take a while to put together, but i'm really excited to be working on this.


One of the things that is the most confusing to me, are the questions surrounding the relationships between the government, tobacco companies, etc. I'm reading these phillip morris documents right now, and what is interesting is that in their studies they found that nicotine is a "weak reinforcing agent".

think about that. "weak reinforcing agent". In laymens terms, they found the "addiction" to be more psychological, instead of physically, chemically addictive. This possibly explains what daniel found out about cigarette additives. Ammonia and other ingredients are added to make the product way more addictive than it should be.

and we are talking about a few thousand additives here!! so that's insane.

So if nicotine is a "weak reinforcing agent", it means that a large variety of factors can effect how much a person smokes. stress and depression are major factors but also boredom and other things.

They used acetaldehyde as an additive because it shows to be a "posotive reinforcer".

So basically, companies like marlboro don't care if you die, they aren't concerned with the benefits of nicotine, they want to sell product, gain a profit, bottom line.

Problem is, disinfo is spread about nicotine calling it a "poisonous substance" which is bullcrap! Not many people know what organic tobacco is, or that it exists, or that it can be good for you.

So im done blabbing, but if anyone has ideas or suggestinos for the video, don't hold back. :D
 
Hi abstract --

Although I don't have anything specifically to contribute, I just learned a few things by reading your post above, and I think its great that you are pursuing this. I think you should keep digging and pulling on threads, and some of the other smokers here will probably have some grist to add to your mill. Good luck on this project!
 
abstract said:
So im done blabbing, but if anyone has ideas or suggestinos for the video, don't hold back. :D

Sounds great abstract, this is gonna be a cool project. My only suggestion would be to also cover the issue of papers/filters. A lot of the chemicals in commercial filtered cigs are in the papers, which includes the papers wrapped around the filters. I remember from my childhood a family friend got cancer in his lip/mouth, and they said it was because he held an unlit cigarette in his mouth all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a real connection there considering the chemicals involved.

Also, as an experiment, try holding a Camel or a Marlboro up to a black light and look at the paper... Brace yourself!
 
Actually I was in "The smoke shed" at work today and we were talking about the different prices of tobacco in different countries.

I thought it would be interesting to do a Malboro/B&H Index of prices around the world comparing taxation rates. Base price could be from a duty free store somewhere.

For example a $11.25 pack of cigs here in Australia results in $7.03 in the tax man's pocket.

There's a list here which taxation rates range from 80.4% in France to 46.2% in South Africa.

_http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13-2-tobacco-taxes-in-australia
 
Hi abstract,

I don't know if you've read the thread about Guardian's adventures ;), but an important fact has come to light that has to do with the chemicals being put into cigarettes, a newer on, in fact, that may interest you. You can read what she wrote about her experience with it here. Scroll down to Guardian's post which is right below RedFox's.

I think that this is a project that really needs to be done, so good luck. :cool2:
 
don't know if you've read the thread about Guardian's adventures , but an important fact has come to light that has to do with the chemicals being put into cigarettes, a newer on, in fact, that may interest you. You can read what she wrote about her experience with it here. Scroll down to Guardian's post which is right below RedFox's.

Okay, wow, getting a disease slowly over time is one thing...an immediate bad reaction? That's bad.

Johnno, thanks, I will add in a section about the taxes, they are unfair and unjust.

unds great abstract, this is gonna be a cool project. My only suggestion would be to also cover the issue of papers/filters. A lot of the chemicals in commercial filtered cigs are in the papers,

Okay good. I almost forgot about that. check.
 
Also, there's something i'm scratching my head about.

The situation between the tobacco companies and the government....i don't know what it is, but i just have this hunch that the tobacco companies somehow benefit from what the government is doing to stamp out smoking. I can't prove anything, of course, and maybe that's not it AT ALL but i have this weird gut feeling
that some things are going on behind the scenes with this that no one has seen or talked about.

Also, i've been getting a real kick out of sites claiming nicotine to be poisonus. it's practically a copy of the receptors it attaches to!! How can nicotine be poisonus? where do they come up with that garbage?

Im going to need lots of scientific backup for this one, oooooh boy. the good news is, most disinfo has no science behind it.
 
I am also excited to hear about your new project, abstract! Oh, the things you and us can learn from this :D

Do not forget that you have the great sott database at your disposal for your project, too. A search of "smoking" brought up 430 articles, "tobacco" 125, and i am sure that if you start searching cigarette companies you might find some connections with the government in there too.

Hope this helps, and good luck!
 
Do not forget that you have the great sott database at your disposal for your project, too. A search of "smoking" brought up 430 articles, "tobacco" 125, and i am sure that if you start searching cigarette companies you might find some connections with the government in there too.

When i decided to start doing this I had no idea it would be so huge to mess with. It's like pandora's box.

I said this on facebook, but anyone who wants to help out in any way is more than welcome. I cant read 430 articles myself! :lol:

Here's some irony too: the government passed laws to add FSC to cigarettes to make them "fire safe" or whatever, and it turns out FSC is a carcinogen.

Sooooooo the government who supposedly wants to punish tobacco companies for their product are encouraging MORE ADDITIVES???


Here's something i have figured out so far: in terms of the arguments on both sides (tobacco vs government) they are both wrong. They are both liars. They both know they are lying, but does that mean they're in cahoots???

Thats a BIG question on my mind does the government work in tandem with tobacco companies, or is this just two groups doing what they need to do to accomplish what they want to accomplish??
 
abstract said:
Here's something i have figured out so far: in terms of the arguments on both sides (tobacco vs government) they are both wrong. They are both liars. They both know they are lying, but does that mean they're in cahoots???

Thats a BIG question on my mind does the government work in tandem with tobacco companies, or is this just two groups doing what they need to do to accomplish what they want to accomplish??

I've often thought about this myself. It seems very anti business to demonize smoking and the government is doing this. But the government is very pro-business at the expense of people so it doesn't quite add up. Or at least I just can't understand the nuances. Is the governments' railing against smoking just a way to get tobacco companies to make them even more lethal in order to protect us because they know that most people won't stop smoking regardless of "clever" ad campaigns?
 
I feel like they've given up making the current smokers trying to quit in comparison to scaring people so much they never even think of smoking.

It's all soooooo confusing.

Another speculation is that they're all just psychopaths and a tobacco company paying out a million dollars doesn't affect anything if you're that rich already, so the world is just their little freaking playground, just confuse the crap out of us for fun or something.

and y'know i was reading these phillip morris documents last night but they aren't very detailed. You can find all sorts of stuff but nothing really gets into details.

Some of the arguments presented by phillip morris in these documents actually seems very logical. and this is because that they point out that nicotine can not be SCIENTIFICALLY classified as "addictive". the word "addictive" is just used for it's emotional impact.

according to the document: "Drug addiction is a state of periodic or chronic intoxication produced by the repeated consumption of a drug (natural or synthetic). Its characteristics include: An overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means; A tendency to increase the dose; A psychic (psychological) and generally a physical dependence on the effects of the drug; Detrimental effect on the individual and on society."

Does this sound like cigarette "addiction"? maybe the following sounds familiar: drug habituation was defined as "a condition resulting from the repeated consumption of a drug. Its characteristics include: A desire (but not a compulsion) to continue taking the drug for the sense of improved well-being which it engenders; Little or no tendency to increase the dose; Some degree of psychic dependence on the effect of the drug, but absence of physical dependence and hence of an abstinence syndrome; Detrimental effects, if any, primarily on the individual."

There is a huge difference between a cigarette smoker and a heroin addict. But this is just morons lumping all drugs into the same category for no reason, to say that smoking is an actual physical dependancy. It's a habit, not an addiction. I can go for a long time without a cigarette if i HAVE to. i might be a little edgy but i'm not going to freak out.

Crack, on the other hand, is horribly addictive. The first hit is the highest you're gonna get, and after that, you have increased appetite for the drug. It makes you go to any length just to get five dollars to buy a little hit to keep yourself going. and we see this behavior in the majority of people who smoke crack. would you do for cigarettes what you would do for crack? of course not.

So thats a major point right there: smoking is a habit, not an addiction. How many of you have quit and started and quit again with no problem?
 
Here's something i have figured out so far: in terms of the arguments on both sides (tobacco vs government) they are both wrong. They are both liars. They both know they are lying, but does that mean they're in cahoots???

Thats a BIG question on my mind does the government work in tandem with tobacco companies, or is this just two groups doing what they need to do to accomplish what they want to accomplish??

It seems to me that he tobacco companies, along with all the other mega-corporations, own the government and all others. (C’s said once that a one-world government already exists). So they are in "cahoots.” I think the haggleing back and forth (between tabacco companies and the “government”) is just a show for us common folk . It makes the government appear as though they are doing their job of “protecting” us. In other words, it’s to make us all feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing that our “government” is watching out for our common good.

So, I would say that the government does “work in tandem with tobacco companies” because they are one and the same thing. Just two sides of the same coin, so to speak.
:cool2:
Samuel

Edit: Fixed broken quotations.
 
So, I would say that the government does “work in tandem with tobacco companies” because they are one and the same thing. Just two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

well, thats all fine and good, but how to prove it? thank you, your response was interesting.
 
Just a couple of points. The anti-smoking campaign that really ramped up in the 1990's in the U.S. had some usual eyebrow raising aspects. First, the state Attornies General class action suits against the tobacco companies coincided with an accelerating impoverishment of the tobacco farmers. At the time, pork products were becoming increasingly in high demand with Asia driving most of the demand.

Many legistlators in the U.S. saw this opportunity and helped the struggling tobacco farmers go bust. They then used their insider knowledge and connections to scoop up huge amounts of tobacco farm acrage REAL cheap and convert them to hog farms. They caused indescribable pollution with the large scale hog farm waste. And so many of these bastards tried to get in on the pork market that they actually ended up crashing the prices by huge increases in the supply that overwhelmed the demand.

There was a hog waste "pit" that collapsed in the mid to late 1990's that flooded into the Chesapeak Bay and actually caused a monstrous mutation in a primitive algea that went on a feeding frenzie on the hog crap. Huge amounts of fish were killed. People who came close to the fish kills fainted from an overwhelming stench. They ended up having severe nurological and loss of memory problems from the toxins released by this organism.

If you search the web, I'm sure you will come up with all the details. I'm just recounting this from memory.

Also if you search the forum in What's on your mind, I wrote a post a couple of months ago in a thread about smoking where I mention the scam of the government lawsuits against the tobacco companies: how the government actually is responsible for the people's health, made MUCH MORE money from tobacco sales from taxation than the companies, and was somehow not liable for the negative health claims they made which they claimed overwhelmed their health care costs.

So if the gov & tobacco cos are in cahoots, look into the benefit for both: gov insiders get very cheap tobacco farm land from bankrupt farmers to convert to hog farms & tobacco companies get to pressure the surviving farmers into even better terms for the companies to increase their profits while pointing to the assault they are under from the gov.

Sorry, I don't have more time right now, but hope you'll get more ideas of what else to look into. Good luck with the project.
 
Back
Top Bottom