-Caveat Lector-
On 11 Feb 99, , Samatha wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> We don't make war on all consumers goods which can lead to bad health in
> the future. High fat foods, nitrites in processed meat, and on and on and on.
>
> Why tobacco? Sure it causes health problems in 2/3 of it's users, sure
> the medical bills get expensive.....but are we taking a moral high ground
> against sugar because of the incidence of diabetes in this country?
>
> Stevia, a natural, healthy, powerful sweetener was banned in the US for
> years until health food advocates got it cleared to be sold as a food
> supplement. Makers are not ALLOWED to advertise it as a sweetener. The
> Japansese use stevia frequently, and it's added into their processed foods,
> and they have a much lower incidence of diabetes.
>
> But to make my point.....I think the attack on tobacco is so that it will
> be made illegal, forced onto the black market, sold at high prices -- tax free
> -- and give the police-state another lame excuse to jail ordinary people.
Yes, I agree....teenage cigarette smokers are already open to criminal prosecution,
since it is now illegal for them to buy them.
Interesting that is now LEGAL to refuse to hire people who use tobacco on or off the
job....even though tobacco is still a legal substance. And this is a trend that is
growing
across the nation. Let alone that there is no way to prove which respiratory ailments
are caused by tobacco and which by other pollutants in the environment--including
automobile emissions, pesticides, and other airborne chemical pollutants (that stuff
being sprayed in contrails across the nation?).
Yet there is no refusal to hire people who drink alcohol or eat Twinkies....or drink
milk
laced with BGH....who are equally liable to require much medical attention and time off
the job for substance-related illnesses.
Is this perhaps just another move toward a facist state....that only those who can
prove
perfect health may work?
Also curious how the courts are going after the gun manufacturers. I am not
particularly in favor of guns yet don't want to see public access banned. The idea that
a manufacturer can be sued if his product is used irresponsibly, in spite of no fault
by
the manufacturer itself--if successful--means that the government will be able to
control
who produces what, and which manufacturers are allowed to stay in business.
Also curious how one pundit, speaking of economics, talked about the need to remove
"Depression Era barriers."--making these "barriers" sound antiquated and outdated.
Those are Anti-Trust Laws he's talking about.
sno0wl
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
