Cross Post: Philip Thompson High Taxes And Plain Packaging Fund North Korean Nukes And Terrorists

In just first few weeks of 2017 police over the world have been busy seizing counterfeit cigarettes. In Ireland investigators, including Detector Dog Alfie, seized 60,000 illegal cigarettes with a street value of €32,500 ($34,000 USD), just beating out the Canadian residents caught smuggling 53,600 cigarettes a few days earlier. In South Africa investigators seized 1720 boxes of counterfeit cigarettes with a street value of $19,000, and in November the small county of Nottingham in the U.K. announced seizures of counterfeit cigarettes increased threefold from the year before to nearly 500,000 cigarettes. That is nothing compared to what police will seize in Wales this year. This week police there seized 750,000 counterfeit cigarettes, with an estimated value of £427,000 ($535,671 USD), from a gang that used a false wall, hidden chute and a baby monitor to conceal their activities.

All around the world as governments intervene in the market with “plain packaging” of cigarette packs and tax hikes to discourage smoking, they are trading one evil for another. Tobacco harms the health of those who smoke and those around them, but consenting adults are responsible to bear the costs of their decisions. A system of robust property rights demand governments to honor the free exchange between producers and consumers and allow society to regulate consumption with minimal intervention.

These interventions have opened up a new criminal industry to traffic and produce fake cigarettes. Sophisticated crime syndicates, terrorists, and even the government of North Korea are skirting import controls and taxes to provide cheaper cigarettes to consumers. This robs governments of billions in tax revenue, jeopardizes consumer safety and forced the U.S. president to declare the “global illicit trade in tobacco a threat to national security.”

In Australia, where smokers are facing $40 ($30 USD) packs thanks to 12.5% annual tax increases, 14% of tobacco is bought on the black market robbing the government of 1.4 billion (1 billion USD) in tax revenue.

In the U.K., cigarettes continue to be the number 1 counterfeit product investigated by Trading Standards, involving more authorities every year. According to a 2015 strategy report the market for illicit cigarettes has been reduced to 10%, yet “tobacco smuggling costs over £2 billion ($2.5 billion USD) in lost revenue each year.”

In the EU 65% of seized cigarettes are illicit counterfeits, costing the community $10 billion euros ($10.5 billion USD) in lost tax and customs revenue a year.

In Jamaica, illicit cigarettes make up 20% of the market and rob the government of “$2 billion in revenue annually” ($15.5 million USD) which is instead going to criminals who purchase guns and ammunition.  Also, Jamaica is plagued by counterfeit, illicit, plastic rice.

In Hong Kong, where a regular pack costs around $7 USD but in mainland China only $2 USD, illicit cigarettes rose to occupy 29% of the market,  according to an Oxford Economics report, and a loss to the government of $377 million.

In India, where imported cigarettes are hit with a 30% customs duty as well as taxed highly in stores the smuggling rate has increased 18.3% between 2013 and 2015. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry report in “Illicit Markets- A Threat to Our National Interests” that smuggled cigarettes are 8-10% of total consumption valued at $1.3 billion USD, an extraordinary amount going to criminals.

More atrocious than the loss of tax revenue, consumers of illicit and counterfeit cigarettes are oftentimes unknowingly smoking cigarettes that are worse for their health, because criminals don’t care about safety standards. But, by far the worst outcome of these market interventions is the transfer of billions in hard cash to criminals, terrorists and the North Korean regime of Kim Jong-Un to fund his nuclear program.

As far back as 2005 U.S. intelligence agencies linked North Korean produced counterfeit cigarettes to their sale in the U.S. According to Peter Prahar “there is no doubt that the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, the Korean Workers’ Party, and the Korean People’s Army are all involved in criminal activity”. Mr. Prahar testified as the director of the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs before a Senate hearing titled “North Korea: Illicit Activity Funding the Regime.” He stated that, according to sources, there are between 1 and 12 factories in North Korea that produce counterfeit cigarettes of British, American and Japanese brands.  These cigarettes are then smuggled to markets around the world including the U.S. where counterfeit N. Korean produced Marlboro cigarettes were identified in “1,300 incidents” between 2002 and 2005. Mr. Prahar continued, “a major source of income to the regime and its leadership, we believe is the counterfeiting of cigarettes. This is a potentially enormously lucrative business, again with a U.S. connection and, of course, these cigarettes have shown up in Asian markets, as well.”

Senator Coburn remarked that “the income from these illicit activities is substantial and provides a reliable revenue stream supporting the regime’s weapons programs.” Since then, the North Korean regime has agreed to end its nuclear program twice, yet, developed nuclear weapons, tested a hydrogen bomb, miniaturized nuclear warheads and developed long range missiles.

North Korea is only one of several bad actors raising funds by selling counterfeits, especially cigarettes. In 2002 Operation Smokescreen resulted in the first prosecution for “material support to a designated terrorist organization,” in this case Hezbollah operatives raised $8 million smuggling cigarettes from North Carolina to Michigan. The same thing happened again in 2004. Hezbollah continues to operate this way in the Western hemisphere.

Counterfeit sales continue to play such a sizable role in financing terror that it was mentioned in two reports last month – one from the White House on Intellectual Property Enforcement the other the House Taskforce on Stopping Terror Financing. The House report included a statement from General John F. Kelly of U.S. Southern Command that Hezbollah continues to raise money through “lucrative illicit activities like money laundering and trafficking in counterfeit goods and drugs” he named Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Panama as primary locations.

The Whitehouse report called for “renewed attention” to the nexus of crime and terrorist financing, it summarized analysis from Interpol and publicly available data to conclude:

Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups; North African radical fundamentalists terrorists in Europe; Hezbollah; Chechen separatists; ethnic Albanian extremist groups; and paramilitaries in Northern Ireland—have been linked with the smuggling and sale of a broad array of counterfeit goods, including counterfeit cigarettes; medicines; personal care products (such as shampoos, creams, cologne and perfume); auto parts; shoes and apparel; and pirated music, movies, computer software, and video games.

North Korean nukes and terrorism are a few examples of the unintended consequences high taxes and intellectual property infringement have on the society. To defend the ability of individuals to own and exchange property, even cigarettes, does not equate to approval of each exchange. Rather, property rights force governments to tolerate and respect the individual decisions of each citizen and protect the government from creating unintended consequences of ill-advised market intervention – such as diverting would-be tax revenue to terrorists.

Philip Thompson is an Associate with the Property Rights Alliance. This piece first appeared at The Daily Caller.

This entry was posted in Cross Post, Plain Packaging, Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Cross Post: Philip Thompson High Taxes And Plain Packaging Fund North Korean Nukes And Terrorists

  1. Rabz

    Great post.

    The reality of unintended consequences and feelgood social engineering idiocy.

  2. .

    Excellent work.

    We know it is going and why.

    We need to beat the nanny statists over the head with this.

  3. C.L.

    I understand the righteous gotcha here but I’m a bit concerned with phrases like …

    “… robbing the government of …”
    “… costs over £2 billion … in lost revenue …”
    “… costing the community …”
    “… rob the government of …”

    The government is not being robbed of anything it owns or has a right to. Remember that.
    You can’t have it both ways: lamenting idiotic tax hikes and then lamenting the “lost” revenue.

  4. woolfe

    In Australia, where smokers are facing $40 ($30 USD) packs thanks to 12.5% annual tax increases, 14% of tobacco is bought on the black market robbing the government of 1.4 billion (1 billion USD) in tax revenue.

    I’m sorry but aren’t the government robbing the consumers using an unwarranted a mega tax (disclaimer: I have never smoked)? As Rabz said unintended consequences etc.

  5. Some History

    The government is not being robbed of anything it owns or has a right to. Remember that.
    You can’t have it both ways: lamenting idiotic tax hikes and then lamenting the “lost” revenue.

    Absolutely. Baseless extortionate taxes on tobacco – particularly in Australia where the extent of extortionate taxes is into the eye-watering, “twilight zone” level – is robbery. An alternative to the “official” supply develops as consumers attempt to avoid being robbed, in some instances by very large amounts, by the government that is supposed to represent them.

  6. .

    robbing the government

    Absolutely ridiculous.

  7. woolfe

    Next they’ll be saying that claiming a tax deduction or rebate is Robbing the Government, oh, hold on, wait a minute…..

  8. old bloke

    I’m a bit puzzled by the term “counterfeit cigarettes”. Does that mean they are manufactured using recycled tea leaves instead of tobacco? I’m sure counterfeit packaging was meant.

  9. .

    I have bought counterfeit tobacco.

    It is the real product but not the brand you’d normally get.

    Like getting Passion Pop in a bottle of Moet.

  10. old bloke


    Like getting Passion Pop in a bottle of Moet.

    If you paid Passion Pop prices, then there’s no problem.

  11. C.L.

    Right. So, once again, we’ve been tricked into using a phraseology that normalises state theft.
    The cigarettes are not “counterfeit.”
    See also the reference to “criminals” selling them.

  12. .

    I don’t know. They weren’t bad but they tasted a little off. I didn’t realise until I used the product, but I suppose it was good that they stopped the greedy Commonwealth of Australia from getting anymore money.

    I think it was related to plain packaging. There must have been a shortage of legit. supplies under the new rules and they stepped in, it was just after plain packaging came in.

  13. old bloke

    I’m waiting for black market “counterfeit” electricity to become available. I’m tired of paying for the RET and associated costs for social justice electricity when I’m not a believer in the discredited CAGW myth.

    If prices continue to escalate, I’m sure some enterprising individuals will setup a suitably sized diesel generators, and the nation’s backyards will be criss-crossed with extension cables to reticulate the “counterfeit” electricity.

  14. David Brewer

    Agree with others: excellent post but it makes no sense to talk about « lost » revenue calculated against the extortionate nominal tax rate imposed. Same argument as « tax expenditures » which are not expenditures at all, just the government for once keeping its greedy mitts to itself.

    An interesting question is why people can’t see that governments raising the price of a legal product way above its market price is a bad idea. It’s not just cigarettes, and it’s not just product taxes. It’s all the other products mentioned and all the other measures governments can take that jack up prices – excessive regulations, inefficient government monopolies, extortionate business taxes, quotas and tariffs, restrictions on suppliers, outlets or customers etc. etc.

    Part of the answer may be that people are blinded by the product and the moral overtones it has taken on, so that they cannot see the principle and mechanism at work. They seem to be still blinded by notions of good and evil about the product when the consequences of distorting the market for it are obvious and disastrous. Somehow the evil of ciggies, or beer, or perfume, or a Merc or whatever still outweighs for them both the corruption and crime that a bloated legal price brings, and the contempt for the government and the law that the whole process encourages.

  15. Chris

    Just imagine the revenue ‘lost’ to black market drugs and guns! If only the Government could tap it!

  16. .

    Don’t give them any ideas, chris.

  17. woolfe

    Imagine the rivers of gold they could tap if they stopped allowing NGO employees claiming salary sacrifice?

  18. Carpe Jugulum

    About $6 for a pack lucky strikes here, (about 500 yen)

  19. Some History

    Some background on how we’ve gotten to this point. As the Tobacco Control (prohibitionist) nut cases were agitating for tax hikes on tobacco years ago, it was pointed out to them that, beyond a certain point, hikes in tobacco tax will encourage contraband. The standard response from TC was, “Don’t be absurd. A contraband market is a myth, fear-mongering by the [evil] tobacco industry [and its “shills”]”. Anything that questions any of the harebrained ideas of TC is typically dismissed by TC as “fear-mongering by the [evil] tobacco industry”.

    As greedy, useful-idiot politicians hiked taxes on tobacco, the “alternative supply” market began to grow. Seizures of “alternative supply” tobacco began to increase. Even then, the TC morons denied that a contraband market existed. It’s only with more tax hikes and increasing seizures of contraband tobacco that it was no longer possible to deny its existence. But even then, TC’s “explanation” of alternative supply tobacco is that a flourishing contraband market has nothing to do with increases in tobacco taxes. TC would have us believe that a contraband market just popped up out of thin air one day for no apparent reason.

    The contraband market has now become a major topic at 5-star Tobacco Control conferences. It’s mind-boggling how these 5-star plonkers intend to combat contraband, bearing in mind that it was these same nitwits that created the entirely predictable circumstance to begin with. Most countries are signed up to and have ratified the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). To combat contraband – an issue it created, the WHO encourages all signatories to the FCTC to hike tobacco taxes into the stratosphere – like Australia (a good global citizen). If most countries have eye-wateringly high extortionate taxes, this will supposedly discourage contraband even though, according to the WHO, a flourishing contraband market has nothing to do with taxes on tobacco. Don’t try to follow this gold-plated stupidity or your head will hurt.

  20. MsDolittle

    I have bought counterfeit tobacco.

    Me too. I recently bought a friend a couple of packs. I went into the shop.. I dunno why or what advertising gave me the impression I could buy legit smokes there. The shop only sold passion pop and no legits. My friend said they were great, so good he wanted more. Next time I’m in Gippsland I will get more. I asked SuperDo what the police thought about it.. not at all interested.

  21. MsDolittle

    And I am enjoying my snus.

  22. MsDolittle

    Don’t try to follow this gold-plated stupidity

    We need safe smoking rooms with yellow sharps and butts buckets.

  23. Some History

    The dangers of prohibitionists/ideologues/zealots.

    To the award-winning stupidity/greed that has created a flourishing alternative supply of tobacco can be added other award-winning stupidity of Tobacco Control/Public Health.

    The “slippery slope” to other products. With anti-tobacco cranking up through the 1980s, essentially on the fraudulent basis of secondhand smoke “danger”, the question was often asked: If tobacco is targeted, is there a slippery slope to other products? Guess what? There was the standard response – “Don’t be absurd. That’s just fear-mongering by the [evil] tobacco industry [and its “shills”]. There can be no slippery slope because tobacco is a ‘unique’ product”.

    Well, that, too, has been shown up to be another load of PH/TC crap shoved on the public. We have a bunch of PHers clamouring to get their favourite target onto taxpayer funding, e.g., salt, sugar, alcohol.

    Then we have the “slippery slope” for Tobacco Control. With comprehensive indoor bans instituted on the fabrication of secondhand smoke “danger”, the question was asked: You’re not thinking of agitating for outdoor bans? Surely not? And guess what? It received the standard TC response – “Don’t be absurd. No-one is contemplating outdoor bans on smoking. That’s just fear-mongering by the [evil] tobacco industry [and its “shills”].”

    Well, that also has been shown up to be another load of PH/TC crap foisted on the public. We now have outdoor bans galore – entire university campuses, entire hospital premises, entire nursing home premises, parks, beaches. The prohibitionist intent from the ouset – mid 1970s – was to eventually ban smoking indoors and outdoors by “salami slices”, i.e., the Godber Blueprint.

    Australia is right up there in antismoking loony land having lapped up the propaganda hook, line, sinker, fishing rod, aluminium boat, and part of the jetty. There’s only one other place in the West that would pip Australia for antismoking nut casery – affluent areas of California. Let me introduce you to Laguna Beach where a completion of the Godber Blueprint is firmly in sight – banning smoking everywhere in public…. the TC “orgasm”:
    Laguna Beach could be the first in Orange County with citywide smoking ban
    The citywide ordinance would expand the no-smoking ban already in place at the beaches, beach access point, restaurants with indoor and outdoor dining, parks and wildland areas to sidewalks, parking structures and alleys. People would only be allowed to smoke in their homes and vehicles, said Ryan Hallet…..

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/smoking-742229-laguna-ban.html
    http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-0126-lb-smoking-20170125-story.html

  24. rickw

    The post is good, but the argument could really hone in on the point that unreasonable behaviour by government breeds unintended consequences as people seek to circumvent and / or exploit the unreasonableness.

    Importantly, Government policy gets tested in two places, the ballot box and compliance, you can win at one and lose badly at the other, with significant consequences. This point needs to be hammered repeatedly because modern government doesn’t understand the second point at all.

  25. Diogenes

    Still enjoying the cigars I bought in Singapore and smuggled in – only 2 boxes of 20 , but well in excess of my quota.
    Not only have I deprived the Aust Govt of any revenue, bad sadly also my local smoke shop. Since coming home I have noticed that only the franchisee seems to be working , I haven’t seen any of her usual staff, so I presume she has had to let them go.

  26. Some History

    I’m a bit puzzled by the term “counterfeit cigarettes”.

    “Counterfeit” is highly malleable in the hands of pathological liars that is Tobacco Control. Remember that tax hikes (robbery) are a punishment for those that continue to smoke and super-easy money for government. Alternative supply tobacco threatens the assault. And so TC lies about the alternative, cheaper supply. “It has rat droppings in it, or who knows what’s in it”. It’s all self-serving crap to keep smokers on the official, incredibly over-priced stuff. From my understanding, the alternative supply is standard cigarette brands from other countries. There are some that are specifically manufactured for alternative supply. There are some that are standard cigarettes placed in premium brand packaging. They’re all better than the official supply which are “fire safe” cigarettes. They were made mandatory yet never tested for health effects. There are some that have immediate symptoms from smoking FS cigarettes. Keep away from smoking official cigarettes, if possible. Smoke these sparingly. If you can’t access an alternative supply, smoke mostly roll-your-own.

  27. woolfe

    Maybe this is where their Keynesian logic comes from as it would appear here that demand created supply.

  28. .

    Keep away from smoking official cigarettes, if possible. Smoke these sparingly. If you can’t access an alternative supply, smoke mostly roll-your-own.

    Dang it.

    I choose cigarillos and pipe tobacco.

  29. nilk

    [C]onsumers of illicit and counterfeit cigarettes are oftentimes unknowingly smoking cigarettes that are worse for their health, because criminals don’t care about safety standards.

    This made me laugh. We’ve had decades now of being told that tobacco is bad, mmkay? And now they’re worried about “counterfeit” cancer sticks being bad for our health?

    I guess there are acceptable levels of badness.

  30. C.L.

    And to my mind, people who supply “counterfeit” (that is, untaxed) cigarettes are not “criminals.”
    Or – if they are – they are criminals in the sense that a 12 year-old girl is a criminal when she sells counterfeit lemonade from her front yard stand.

  31. Rabz

    Yes, nilk, the anti smoking loons have been claiming for decades that “authentic” cigarettes are laden with all sorts of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic chemicals.

    They can’t have it both ways.

  32. Some History

    Remember. Antismokers were the first “safe spacers”.

  33. .

    I know some moonbeams that sell organic tobacco. I think it is illegal.

  34. .

    I have a bad feeling the poor fuckers don’t even know what they are doing is illegal.

  35. Diogenes

    I know some moonbeams that sell organic tobacco. I think it is illegal.

    No 1 son’s partner used to rep for a tobacco company (sadly they don’t handle cigars – so no samples or employee discount 🙁 ) . Believe it or not their best seller was an “organic” cigarette

  36. .

    Organic tobacco and proper drying remove a lot of the health risk.

    The legislatively mandated treatments, improper curing and application of phosphate (thus polonium) create more hazard.

  37. Now we are talking. Comparing death sticks to nukes and terrorists. Best comparison yet for this blog which seems very supportive of cancer causing product.

    Those North Korean sources must be good ! They say there are between 1 – 12 illicit factories. I hope the source was not CIA. Just imagine a source saying to Trump North Koreans may have 1 nuke or 12.

    A click on the link in the Hong Kong para shows some reports about Illicit Tabacco in Asia. Click on 2015 report and you see a Disclaimer which states : “prepared this report in accordance with specific terms of reference agreed between Phillip Morris ……….. (and) financial support provided by PM”. I did not bother reading any further. Nobody pays for a report that does not help their business.

    The HK para shows regular pack in HK sells for US$7 but same pack only US$2 in China. It does not appear to be talking about counterfeit cigarettes but a major price difference between countries. If you smuggle in legitimate packs from China and sell for $4 still much cheaper and good profit for something not as serious as say heroin in terms of penalties. As far as the companies and authorities are concerned they are illicit in HK but legitimate in China. Could even be from the same factory.

    Setting up a cigarette factory is not a cheap thing to do especially if you want a product that will get you repeat business. Also factor in bribes etc to remain in business. I am aware of the practice of factories in China making legitimate products for overseas brands but making extra to sell on the side. I know of a company in HK that found product being sold in their building but which was supposed to be exclusive only to UK. Likewise factory staff can get large quantities of the product, allegedly destined for home country, but will make more money smuggled overseas.

    Much is written about illicit cigarettes coming into Australia. How come we don’t see any news about any illicit factories being closed down somewhere and a major seizure ? I may have missed something so perhaps author or Some History has some info on this.

    I would be very interested to know if some of the illicit cigarettes found here can be found to have come from legitimate factories overseas. Not saying it all is. However I doubt that is something the importing companies would want to be known.

    A relative worked in purchasing in a Phillip Morris factory in Phillipines years ago. Can’t remember the price per cigarette but it was in very low centavos (5 ?) At that time those same cigarettes were coming to Australia for legitimate sale but not sure about now. I also recall the relative saying that the ingredients in supposedly low tar / nicotine cigarettes were exactly the same as the normal cigarettes except for the holes in the paper. Tabacco companies have been found guilty of racketeering in connection with such misleading practices.

    I won’t bother with providing any stats I have seen but perhaps the author might give us his lowest estimate of actual deaths per year by smoking to the nearest million. Then go back say a hundred years and compare to all wars and terrorist acts. No need to bother with those suffering other effects of smoking.

    For the record I am not a smoker. No problem if others choose to smoke so don’t take my comments personally. I think the Corporate heads of such companies have over the years proven themselves to be amongst the lowest scum of business leaders through their blatant lies about the harm caused by their products and the actual contents of them. They will distort and twist the truth to increase their sales no matter how much harm they may cause.

    So count me as fan of plain packaging and the imagery on packs.

  38. .

    BrettW
    #2280855, posted on January 31, 2017 at 9:28 pm
    Now we are talking. Comparing death sticks to nukes and terrorists. Best comparison yet for this blog which seems very supportive of cancer causing product.

    Hysterical stuff. You compare a smoker to a terrorist victim? Ridiculous and absurd.

    Those North Korean sources must be good ! They say there are between 1 – 12 illicit factories. I hope the source was not CIA. Just imagine a source saying to Trump North Koreans may have 1 nuke or 12.

    Just imagine you have CIA derangement syndrome and refuse to believe anything they say because they’ve butted heads with a political hero of yours.

    A click on the link in the Hong Kong para shows some reports about Illicit Tabacco in Asia. Click on 2015 report and you see a Disclaimer which states : “prepared this report in accordance with specific terms of reference agreed between Phillip Morris ……….. (and) financial support provided by PM”. I did not bother reading any further. Nobody pays for a report that does not help their business.

    What’s your point? It contradicts what you say later.

    The HK para shows regular pack in HK sells for US$7 but same pack only US$2 in China.

    Income differences. HK is basically Western, economcially.

    blockquote>Much is written about illicit cigarettes coming into Australia. How come we don’t see any news about any illicit factories being closed down somewhere and a major seizure ? I may have missed something so perhaps author or Some History has some info on this.

    Maybe you didn’t notice the murders that happened around Myrtleford. You know, MURDER, not smoking something we’ve known is dangerous for decades.

    I would be very interested to know if some of the illicit cigarettes found here can be found to have come from legitimate factories overseas. Not saying it all is. However I doubt that is something the importing companies would want to be known.

    You’re arguing for a sin tax and accusing others of crimes without any proof.

    I also recall the relative saying that the ingredients in supposedly low tar / nicotine cigarettes were exactly the same as the normal cigarettes except for the holes in the paper. Tabacco companies have been found guilty of racketeering in connection with such misleading practices.

    This is nonsense. The filters clearly make a putative difference if they are the only physical difference. Go smoke a Winfield Gold then a Winfield Red.

    I won’t bother with providing any stats

    Of course you won’t.

    I think the Corporate heads of such companies have over the years proven themselves to be amongst the lowest scum of business leaders through their blatant lies about the harm caused by their products and the actual contents of them.

    Who lied? Name them.

    The government’s “food pyramid” has done far more damage.

  39. Some History

    Much is written about illicit cigarettes coming into Australia. How come we don’t see any news about any illicit factories being closed down somewhere and a major seizure ? I may have missed something …

    Yep. You’ve missed plenty. You’re way behind. Are you suggesting that there is no alternative supply of tobacco products? There have been links provided on the Cat concerning large seizures of “illicit” tobacco.

    but perhaps the author might give us his lowest estimate of actual deaths per year by smoking to the nearest million.

    Brett, you’re the “expert”. You tell us how many deaths smoking causes per annum, indicating how the number was arrived at.

    I think the Corporate heads of such companies have over the years proven themselves to be amongst the lowest scum of business leaders through their blatant lies about the harm caused by their products and the actual contents of them. They will distort and twist the truth to increase their sales no matter how much harm they may cause.

    You’re obviously not familiar with antismokers.

  40. BrettW

    Dot and Some History,
    I am not comparing smokers to terrorist victims. I am comparing the death by cigarettes to death by nukes and terrorists. Main difference being the smokers choose their method of death.

    My point is PM not going to set the terms of referrence and pay for a report that does not help its cause.

    As regards Myrtleford you will have to forgive my ignorance as I dont know where it is never mind the murder situation there. Contrast to your total lack of knowledge about lying by Tobacco companies. Or was that a lie as it seems almost unbelievable that you are not aware they have lied.

    As regards accusing people of crimes without any proof I was merely saying it would be interesting to know if any illicit cigarettes seized here actually came from legitimate overseas factories. Or is this an area best left not discussed ? It is one thing for the illicit cigarettes to be made by a dodgy factory but quite another if they are genuine product but illegally smuggled in.

    As regards nonsense I was talking about the paper not the filter and I stick with my point that there was no difference between two cigarettes which were marketed differently with some thinking one would be less harmful than the other. These deceptions are well documented (see 2nd post).

    As regards deaths by smoking the figure I had seen before my post was 6 million per year (USA is 480,000 alone). I have no idea how WHO or the USA CDC came up with those figures but perhaps Dot and Some History might find a mere million more acceptable. I would be interested to know Some History’s estimate and how he comes up with it. Perhaps the Tobacco companies have some stats. Strange how SH only appears when these threads pop up.

    “Who lied, name them” just confirms Dots total bias and lack of credibility on this subject.

    The 15 April 1994 Congressional hearings named after Congressman Waxman are all over Google and Youtube. The legendary quote was by William Campbell CEO of PM who said ” I do not believe nictotine is addictive”. The 6 CEO’s of the other top companies then repeated this under oath. One CEO actually said nicotine no more addictive than coffee, tea or twinkies. Waxman replied “the difference between cigarettes and twinkies is death”.

    Four years later the Tobacco companies agreed to pay 206 billion over 25 years (Google Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement). How many Anti Smokers have had to pay out billions for the lies and harm done ?

    Operation Berkshire and Project SCUM (RJ REynolds targetting gay and homeless people) are also interesting.

    The was even a movie called The Insider starring Russel Crowe and Al Pacino.

    Continued in next post .

  41. JC

    Contrast to your total lack of knowledge about lying by Tobacco companies. Or was that a lie as it seems almost unbelievable that you are not aware they have lied.

    Lol.. How the fuck would you know they lied, Rooster? You certainly aren’t spare with the lie accuaation when you don’t agree with what they are saying.

    Prove they lied or fuck off, you hopeless little pansy.

  42. JC

    Here’s the counter point to those so-called lies, Rooster, you sad little pansy.

    No one, not one single person with an IQ over 60 would have ever doubted smoking can have adverse health effects. This has been well known since the 50’s and possibly even earlier.

    And no one, not one single person would have been swayed by any comments from cig company execs when they gave Congressional evidence.

    You’re just fucking useless.

  43. BrettW

    According to legal beagle Dot this Judge below must be lying. The below is just the early part of a 54 page opinion. Have edited these paras for space reasons but I think they make the point.

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 99-2496 (GK)
    PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. et al : Defendants. :

    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Back in 2006, the Court issued its Final Judgment and Remedial
    Order #1015 [Dkt. No. 5733], mandating that Defendants publish
    corrective statements on each of five topics on which the Court
    found they had made false and deceptive statements. These topics
    are:
    “(a) the adverse health effects of smoking; (b) the
    addictiveness of smoking and nicotine; (c) the lack of any
    significant health benefit from smoking ‘low tar,’ ‘light,’ ‘ultra
    light,’ ‘mild,’ and ‘natural,’ cigarettes; (d) Defendants’
    manipulation of cigarette design and composition to ensure optimum
    nicotine delivery; and (e) the adverse health effects of exposure
    to secondhand smoke.”

    In particular, the Court concluded that Defendants
    “knowingly and intentionally engaged in a scheme to defraud smokers
    and potential smokers, for purposes of financial gain, by making
    false and fraudulent statements, representations, and promises.”

    The Court found that “each and every one of these Defendants repeatedly,
    consistently, vigorously – and falsely – denied the existence of
    any adverse health effects from smoking,” despite “the massive
    documentation in their internal corporate files from their own
    scientists, executives, and public relations people” that confirmed
    that there was little evidence supporting their claims.

    Specifically, Defendants “knew there was a consensus in the
    scientific community that smoking caused lung cancer and other
    diseases” by at least January 1964. Despite this
    internal knowledge, the Defendants embarked on a “campaign of
    proactive and reactive responses to scientific evidence that was
    designed to mislead the public about the health consequences of
    smoking.”

    The Court found that Defendants “have publicly denied
    and distorted the truth as to the addictive nature of their
    products for several decades.” Defendants “knew and
    internally acknowledged that nicotine is an addictive drug,”
    but “publicly made false and misleading denials of the
    addictiveness of smoking, as well as nicotine’s role in causing
    that addiction.” The Court found that this conduct was
    continuing, observing that “no Defendant accepts the Surgeon
    General’s definition of addiction, no Defendant admits that
    nicotine is the drug delivered by cigarettes that creates and
    sustains addiction, and no Defendant acknowledges that the reason
    quitting smoking is so difficult, and not simply a function of
    individual will power, is because of its addictive nature.”

    Third, the Court found that “Defendants have designed their
    cigarettes to precisely control nicotine delivery levels and
    provide doses of nicotine sufficient to create and sustain
    addiction.”

    Fourth, the Court found that, for several decades, Defendants
    marketed and promoted “low tar brands” as less harmful than
    conventional cigarettes. Defendants knew that “smokers
    of low tar cigarettes modify their smoking behavior, or
    ‘compensate,’ for the reduced nicotine yields by taking more
    frequent puffs, inhaling smoke more deeply, holding smoke in their
    lungs longer, covering cigarette ventilation holes with fingers or
    lips, and/or smoking more cigarettes.” Based on their
    sophisticated understanding of compensation, Defendants understood
    that low tar/light cigarettes offered no clear health benefits.
    However, they “concealed that knowledge and disseminated
    false and misleading statements to downplay its existence and
    prevalence.” Defendants “continue to make false and
    misleading statements regarding low tar cigarettes in order to
    reassure smokers and dissuade them from quitting.”

    Gladys Kessler
    United States District Judge
    November 27, 2012

    Naturally the Tobacco companies kept going to question some wording and some final minor aspects of this case were heard this month.

  44. JC

    Rooster

    The case you posted (learn to link you, daft moron) wasn’t about what you think it is, you tool. That specific case was about the marketing of low tar cigs.

    The “lies” you referring to were all about lying with regards to addiction and health effects.

    This isn’t the same thing as your first claim they lied.. So you either stupidly don’t understand the difference or you’re attempting to slide this past us.

    The so called lies about addiction/health effects directly relates to claims made in front of the Waxman (he looks like a pig) hearings of the 90’s. Despite attempts by the DOJ to indict the executives with perjury the DOJ dropped the case. In other words it could not be proven they lied.

    You’re really not good at this stuff, you sad little pansy.

  45. BrettW

    No surprise Pinocchio turned up here. Like a moth to a flame.

    However in his eagerness to disagree with me he says :

    “How the fuck would you know they lied” (Does this mean he knows they did not ?)

    “Prove they lied or fuck off, you hopeless little pansy” (see 2nd post or videos on internet) Perhaps JC’s expert opinion is that nicotine is not addictive after all. Cant have it both ways JC.

    “No one, not one single person with an IQ over 60 would have ever doubted smoking can have adverse health effects”. (JC, not quite the same as when the CEO’s of the companies lie under oath – do you agree cigarettes are no more addictive than say tea ? ).

    So JC, what are you trying to say ? Did they lie, I must prove they lied, or they could not possibly have lied if it meant I was right that they did lie ? See how tangled you have got yourself over this.

    My posts refer to the specific lie by the CEO’s in Congress and the 2nd post concerns continued lies by the companies (over many years) in relation to multiple aspects involving their product. How you could say “That specific case was about the marketing of low tar cigs”. It is clear the Judge was considering 5 aspects as quoted below :

    (a) the adverse health effects of smoking;
    (b) the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine;
    (c) the lack of any significant health benefit from smoking ‘low tar,’ ‘light,’ ‘ultra
    light,’ ‘mild,’ and ‘natural,’ cigarettes;
    (d) Defendants manipulation of cigarette design and composition to ensure optimum
    nicotine delivery;
    and (e) the adverse health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke.”

    Why indict the individual CEO’s when you are getting 206 Billion from their companies ? To be fair you would have to get the CEO’s before them who started and maintained the lies going back to about 1964.

    You seem to be particularly concerned about the allegation that they were liars. Oh right, your name is Pinocchio and I do understand your need to support fellow liars. Good for you.

    If you are going to pick an argument at least try to make sense. Now take a bex and lie down.

  46. JC

    So JC, what are you trying to say ? Did they lie, I must prove they lied, or they could not possibly have lied if it meant I was right that they did lie ? See how tangled you have got yourself over this.

    You should prove the claim, Rooster, you little pussy.

    Go!

    Now this

    My posts refer to the specific lie by the CEO’s in Congress and the 2nd post concerns continued lies by the companies (over many years) in relation to multiple aspects involving their product. How you could say “That specific case was about the marketing of low tar cigs”. It is clear the Judge was considering 5 aspects as quoted below :

    Rooster’s first claim was this.

    I think the Corporate heads of such companies have over the years proven themselves to be amongst the lowest scum of business leaders through their blatant lies about the harm caused by their products and the actual contents of them. They will distort and twist the truth to increase their sales no matter how much harm they may cause.

    In other words Rooster is specifically drawing on the leftist claims the execs lied in front of the Waxman hearings.

    When he realizes his fuck up, he quickly goes to google and sees if there were cases against the cig execs. Unable to find any he then latches onto a latter case and tries to jump over the hurdles hoping we won’t see it.

    Note… Rosster mentions the executives in the first quote and then runs to a case against Philip Morris… Entirely different.

    What a sad little pansy. Just sad.

    He hates being mocked for being a an idiot, which is why he dissuades other from commenting about his ridiculous posts.

  47. Total meltdown by JC here. My saying the CEO’s lied in Congress is somehow leftist ! Does this mean you are on the Right side of politics if you don’t think they lied ? Let’s not let truth matter at all. Simply stunning in its stupidity.

    To sum up JC’s twisted logic for me to prove my claim that they were lying would mean Nicotine is addictive. See the Judges comments. Note I have to prove something that is now commonly accepted as a fact. Perhaps JC has never heard of the theory behind nicotine patches ?

    So JC were they telling the truth when the 7 CEO’s said Nicotine is not addictive ? Don’t avoid this question as it is the whole crux of the crap you have been posting here.

    As regards Phillip Morris seems their CEO was the first to tell the lie and even the subsequent court case has their name as the lead defendant. They also just happened to be the sponsor of the report I commented upon. Pure co-incidence that my relative worked for them. Might be because they are the biggest USA tobacco company.

    As regards looking for cases there are multiple court cases about Tobacco companies. Clearly this is because the public thinks they are such good corporations and their products are wonderful. I mean they only have to pay 206 Billion for being such good corporate citizens.

    Anyway all this shows is JCs usual attempt to twist things to discredit somebody here.

    I think we can mark JC as a fail on this one. Not even a serious try to make a logical argument.

    Night night loser.

  48. Some History

    Brett, you keep tossing up antismoking propaganda as your ”evidence”. I’ll tackle just some of your asinine parroting.

    As regards deaths by smoking the figure I had seen before my post was 6 million per year (USA is 480,000 alone). I have no idea how WHO or the USA CDC came up with those figures but perhaps Dot and Some History might find a mere million more acceptable.

    So you don’t know how that “death toll” is arrived at. But you’re quite happy to parrot it as fact. No, I don’t find any deaths acceptable, i.e., zero. A case can be made that long-term heavy smoking might be a contributing factor, amongst many other factors, for a very small group of illnesses. However, claiming single-factor causation as antismokers do is another matter altogether. There is no data that coherently allows this sort of claim to be made. Before you parrot “death tolls”, Brett, you really should find out how the “tolls” are arrived at. Try to find out and you’ll see how hard it is. Why is it so difficult to find out this basic information? It’s a statistical “death toll” that “occurs” in a statistical fantasy world. It is not remotely like actual death tolls from people being blown to bits by bombs where underlying causation of mortality is clearly understood. The history of antismoking over the last half-century is the horrendous over-interpretation of flimsy statistical data. It’s self-serving (fosters the erroneous impression that PH understands underlying causation), agenda-driven crap. The term “causation”, a strong term in scientific parlance, is flung about the Public Health literature with reckless abandon.

    The 15 April 1994 Congressional hearings named after Congressman Waxman are all over Google and Youtube. The legendary quote was by William Campbell CEO of PM who said ” I do not believe nictotine is addictive”. The 6 CEO’s of the other top companies then repeated this under oath. One CEO actually said nicotine no more addictive than coffee, tea or twinkies. Waxman replied “the difference between cigarettes and twinkies is death”.

    Here are the points you’re missing. In 1988, the Office of The Surgeon-General, long hijacked by antismoking activists and headed by the rabidly antismoking, C. Everett Koop, improperly redefined tobacco use as due only to “nicotine addiction”. The same activist Office committed itself in the mid-1980s to a Smokefree America by the year 2000. The antismokers were on a roll. They dominated proceedings. With the fabrication of secondhand smoke “danger” through the 1980s and “nicotine addiction”, the tobacco industry was essentially demonized. Then we got the Congressional hearings in 1994 led by Waxman, a long-time rabid antismoker, Congressman for California (antismoker central). The squeals of outrage and horror from the antismoking gathering as tobacco company CEOs stated, under oath, one after the other that they did not consider nicotine addictive just further demonized the industry. I’ve posted information on the myth of nicotine addiction here, which, together with the myth of secondhand smoke “danger”, keeps the Tobacco Control house of cards standing:
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/04/01/submission-to-singapore-tobacco-consultation/comment-page-1/#comment-1993341

    On the ineffectiveness of nicotine patches/gums – by the antismoker, Professor Michael Siegel:
    http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/new-article-reveals-massive-deception.html

    Brett, see if you can find where the much repeated claim “smoking is more addictive than cocaine or heroin” originated. You won’t be impressed and it’s not based on facts, and that’s if you can even find where it originated.

  49. Some History

    It can be appreciated that by 1998 antismoking had reached a fever pitch…. a frenzy. No-one could get a word in except antismokers. The tobacco industry was cornered by a mob of sanctimonious prohibitionists, numerous State Attorneys-General, and their lawyers. They were barking for money, loads of it, like sharks getting a whiff of blood. What else could the tobacco industry do but capitulate to the tune of $246 billion (Master Settlement Agreement). If I remember correctly, the lawyers alone went home with $8 billion. These lawyers then gave Jeffrey Wigand (The Insider), a major “witness”, $2 million to start up an antismoking organization.

    To wrap up the propaganda framework, in 2005 we had the Kessler show trial. The Judge, Gladys Kessler, was a rabid antismoker and pretty well all of those testifying were long-time antismoking activists regurgitating baseless slogans that they had fabricated years earlier. It serves as self reinforcement. In the minds of the gullible it becomes, “well, if the tobacco industry was forced to pay $246 billion and a court of law found X, Y, and Z, then everything that’s said about tobacco/tobacco industry is correct”.

    On “light cigarettes”.
    With their prohibition crusade stalled in the 1970s, it was antismokers that suggested pursuing “safer” cigarettes, i.e., low-tar/low-nicotine, to stay in the “game”. By the early-1980s, it shocked even antismokers how easy it was to manipulate people to antismoking by claiming that nonsmokers were being endangered by ambient tobacco smoke. This was the avenue to prohibition. They dropped everything else, including “light cigarettes”, claiming that this, too, was just another conspiracy by the [evil] tobacco industry.

    Well someone – an antismoker, no less – has taken the time to look into the history of light cigarettes and the facts here, too, don’t fit the antismoking rhetoric.
    http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/who-said-light-cigarettes-are-safer.html

    Brett, google the “McTear Case” from the United Kingdom. There were a few antismoking activists listed to testify, including Richard Doll. The Judge put the activists on notice that he would only accept facts and not antismoking rhetoric. With such a stipulation, the activists were found severely wanting. Very different to the Kessler show trial.

  50. Some History

    On the movie, The Insider.

    It was produced by Disney which should give a strong indication of how seriously to take the film. Again, it’s a rare person – a college film student’s essay on The Insider – prepared to do research, something no-one in the media did – to untangle fact from fiction:
    http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/reels/films/list/0_13_9

    Another rare insight at the time (now behind a paywall):
    Forget the Movie and TV Show.
    I’ll Wait for the Book.

    By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
    Copyright 1999 Wall Street Journal
    November 3, 1999

    Four years ago, CBS News spiked an interview with a tobacco researcher, Jeffrey Wigand, because the network’s lawyers were afraid of lawsuits. Mr. Wigand was going to say that his former employer, Brown & Williamson, had blocked research into a safer cigarette because the company’s lawyers were afraid of lawsuits.
    Already you might say there are too many lawyers involved, but now this story has been made into a movie, “The Insider,” set to open in theaters this Friday. At last week’s premiere in Beverly Hills, the guests of honor included two more lawyers, Richard Scruggs and Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore. Along with Mr. Wigand, this cabal also starred in another production, bigger than any Hollywood picture, the state Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry.
    Not having seen the movie, we’ll reserve judgment on how these complexities are treated. But anyone not involved in sensory deprivation experiments knows the crowd at “60 Minutes” is unhappy. Mike Wallace dismisses the film as a hokey morality play and has worked the media masterfully to counter his portrayal as someone who initially “caved in” to the network suits.
    As small screen reality becomes big screen reality, real world reality has also been coming into sharper focus. Whatever their legal acumen, the editorial judgment of the CBS lawyers looks better and better.
    The latest contribution to our understanding came last week, when two Louisville television stations reported an affidavit by an FBI agent who had investigated a death threat supposedly made against Mr. Wigand. In commercials for the movie this is the scene of Mr. Wigand finding a bullet in his mailbox. It turns out it wasn’t only the FBI agent who suspected Mr. Wigand of faking the death threat. So did the professional security man hired by CBS to protect Mr. Wigand.
    Mr. Wallace says CBS suspected at the time that Mr. Wigand might have planted the bullet and threatening note himself. “It was questioned but we couldn’t come to a conclusion one way or the other.” So why was the death threat featured when a portion of the interview appeared on the CBS Evening News, and why did it disappear when it finally aired on “60 Minutes” a week later? “It’s a fair question,” Mr. Wallace says, referring us to CBS executives who decline to provide the answer.
    OK, but why should anybody expect better of Disney, which turned the bullet in the
    mailbox into a pivotal scene in the movie?
    Getting back to the CBS lawyers, they ordered “60 Minutes” to drop the Wigand story in November 1995 because they feared a “tortious interference” lawsuit by B&W. Mr. Wigand had signed a confidentiality agreement with the company. CBS could have been accused of illegally inducing him to violate it.
    CBS at the time was negotiating to sell itself to Westinghouse, from which many CBS
    officials would profit handsomely. When you give executives stock options don’t be
    surprised when they put shareholder interests first. But were they being legal chickens?
    Some have suggested no court would have allowed a mere contract to stand in the way of Mr. Wigand’s burning revelations.
    The movie buys the idea that the Wigand interview would rip the lid off the tobacco
    industry. But a great deal of damaging information had already been revealed in documents stolen by a disgruntled paralegal. Anytime it wanted, “60 Minutes” could have developed a report on what B&W knew about nicotine addiction. Others did, including this newspaper.
    The mythology of the “scoop” notwithstanding, “60 Minutes” was not discovering “news” so much as packaging a melodrama around a “whistleblower.” This is a distinction that judges and juries are fully capable of making.
    It also came out that CBS had paid Mr. Wigand a modest consulting fee on a previous piece and had agreed to indemnify him against a libel suit if he told the truth. Neither gesture seems particularly nefarious. But Lowell Bergman, the CBS producer and hero of the film, also gave Mr. Wigand a veto over whether the interview would be aired, which raises a problem. Mr. Wigand’s lawyer and adviser was none other than Mr. Scruggs, who had already begun spending millions of dollars in seed money to promote the Medicaid tobacco suits.
    According to Mr. Wallace at CBS, Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore had “long before” identified Mr. Wigand as someone who could help their case.
    It was Mr. Scruggs who provided a house, a boat, two cars and an income for Merrell
    Williams, who stole the B&W documents. Mr. Scruggs stood to lose a great deal of money if the lawsuits failed, and when they succeeded it netted hundreds of millions for him and billions for Mississippi.
    Lawyers are not editors, and journalists aren’t supposed to worry about the consequences of the news they report. But we all know it’s more complicated than that. If the CBS lawyers stepped back and decided something here didn’t pass the smell test, who could blame them? There was a good story to be done–eventually it was done by this newspaper and the Washington Post–about the industry’s failure to develop a safer cigarette. But what “60 Minutes” was presenting was a dramaturgy that matched Mr. Wigand’s needs with the needs with the needs of television news. He was to be the conscience-stricken hero, hunted by a vindictive tobacco empire.
    None of this had much relevance for the dangers of tobacco, which are well known, nor for the public policy questions, which have been sidetracked in the pursuit of lucre. It had greater relevance for, in the increasingly bizarre world of our courts, attaching “liability” to the tobacco companies so a large portion of the future proceeds of smoking could be transferred from shareholders to the trial lawyers and state budgets.
    Mr. Wigand had confided in his diary in 1991 that B&W had lost its stomach for the safe cigarette project, but he stuck around collecting his $300,000 salary until he was fired in 1993. Was he really the right person to turn into a celebrity witness for a politicized shakedown of the tobacco industry?
    Journalists usually rely on gastrointestinal indicators to warn when their quest for a “story” has led them too far in the direction of being co-opted by someone else’s agenda. They probably won’t get much justice in the movie, but the CBS lawyers may turn out to have been better journalists than anybody is willing to give them credit for.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB941582235963434170

    Now understanding how light cigarettes were fraudulently depicted by the antismoking bandwagon from the 1980s as a tobacco industry “conspiracy”, it’s then easy to comprehend why “B&W had lost its stomach for the safe cigarette project”.

  51. Some History

    So, Brett, where does the foregoing leave us? Well, it shows you up, again, as a brainwashed git unable to discern fact from fiction. In propaganda parlance, you’re easy pickings…. a pushover.

    Brett, do you think that society is not capable of venturing down destructive paths masqueraded as progressive? I think I’ve pointed out to you on other threads the eugenics catastrophe of early last century. Eugenics (which was also rabidly anti-tobacco/alcohol) was popularized in America in the early-1900s and later brought to its catastrophic crescendo in Germany.

    Eugenics was propelled by the medically-aligned. It ran on the junk science of “heredity trees”. It was embraced/funded by the mega-wealthy and the “educated” classes. It was taught in prestigious universities. The major social institutions were beholden to eugenics. Eugenics got sterilization laws passed. It was the major momentum behind smoking bans in many American states and Prohibition. There were very few critics of eugenics at the time. G.K. Chesterton was one of the rare critics.

    Eugenics promised the eradication of crime, poverty, and disease. Rather, it brought out the worst in people – racism, bigotry, supremacy, cruelty, brutality, industrial-scale murder.

    So, can the network of key social institutions (e.g., medical, media, academia, legal, legislature) get it catastrophically, destructively wrong? You betcha. If you were about at the time, you would have gone right along with the official line.

  52. JC

    Some History, forgive Rooster as he’s very, very gay.

    Rooster

    This is what you said

    I think the Corporate heads of such companies have over the years proven themselves to be amongst the lowest scum of business leaders through their blatant lies about the harm caused by their products and the actual contents of them.

    The excecs lying accusation is directly related to the Waxman hearings.

    The case you linked is irrelevant and the execs weren’t named in the case you posted. You know this, which is why you posted that ridiculous court report.

    You bullshitting pedant.

  53. Mundi

    Apparently QLD just banned smoking anywhere in a state park.

    You should have heard ABC radio, they were gushing about it. They had some supporter on there claiming it was the happiest day of the year and how wonderful it was and how it was sure to decrease smoking rates.

    They also quickly turned to the issue of outright banning of smoking. They still plan to ban anyone born after 2000 from ever buying cigarettes.

  54. .

    BrettW
    #2281001, posted on February 1, 2017 at 12:31 am
    Dot and Some History,
    I am not comparing smokers to terrorist victims. I am comparing the death by cigarettes to death by nukes and terrorists. Main difference being the smokers choose their method of death.

    Um?

    As for knowing smoking is dangerous – no one from 1964 onwards should have ever been able to sue.

  55. .

    Third, the Court found that “Defendants have designed their
    cigarettes to precisely control nicotine delivery levels and
    provide doses of nicotine sufficient to create and sustain
    addiction.”

    Wait what?

    I thought if we had one puff we were addicted!

  56. Jannie

    Plastic rice? In Jamaica? I and I in Babylon fromnight.

  57. .

    Jesus. This plastic rice stuff is a crock of shit.

    There is reconstructed rice, made from broken rice and cornmeal.

    The stuff that got taken off the market was infected with a toxic microbe.

Comments are closed.