So who in "The Establishment" or "The Illuminati" or "The Power That Be" did the tobacco industry piss off? [Serious]
25 2016-05-30 by BrokenLCD
America was founded on tobacco, it was the only thing they could get to grow. If it wasn't for tobacco those original settlers would have probably died off and the good ol' US of A might never have been.
We know smoking is bad. We've known for decades now. We started hearing stuff in the 60s that some said it might not be good. In the 70s there was pretty overwhelming proof of the myriad health issues that stemmed from smoking. By the 80s we were in full on anti-smoking mode. From there on out it's practically been more socially acceptable to be racist than a smoker.
Anti-smoking campaigns and laws have been constant for 40 years now. Every year there's millions budgeted to PSA and information against smoking. We all know, it's ingrained. If people choose to smoke it's because they don't care, not because they don't know.
And now we even have e-cigs and vaping classified by the government as "tobacco products".
So my question is. Hasn't the tobacco industry been a ruling pillar of American society since day 1? Did the other powers of industry and politics have family die of smoking related cancer and decide to wage eternal war against the tobacco industry for generations unending?
We don't go after the evils of eating, drinking, drugs, sex or anything else with the uncaged veracity that we do smoking in this country. Not to mention all the massive environmental catastrophes energy, oil, fracking companies continue to do that more of less go on unregulated, unmentioned. In many cases they still completely and purposefully ignore the evils of those other industries, but yet it's always tobacco that has to be shut down and ended.
So who in the Establishment or Illuminati did RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris piss off so badly that their entire industry would forever be litigated against, rallied against, and have the full weight of US politics and business come crushing down on them like nothing else we've ever seen? It's been going on for 40 some years now and there's no sign of it slowly even as the actually number of smokers continues to drop year after year. I mean, that's a sign that it's all working, but you know there's more to it than that! This is about revenge on the tobacco guys from some very powerful people. This isn't about little Johnny and Suzy not picking up that first puff.
This is not an endorsement for smoking or anything, it's just always struck me as uncommonly excessive how much "The Powers That Be" have gone after this one industry. There has to be more to it than just getting people to not pick up or quit.
Thanks.
33 comments
22 dejenerate 2016-05-30
Not sure, but Nixon signing the law that banned tobacco advertising on television was the death knell - the news media then realized they could report on the industry with fewer monetary repercussions.
We need to do the same for pharmaceutical marketing on television. That NEVER should have been allowed, and we're in a world of shit right now because of it.
9 KendleC 2016-05-30
Agreed, absolutely. I think pharmaceutical advertisements are an offense to the viewer, thinker, medical community, and on a larger scale is detrimental to actual health. The nightly news is punctuated by the implication that there is something wrong with you and is about to kill you...psycho-somatics, depression, stress hormones. And now back to the news....
3 liverpoolwin 2016-05-30
Yes, they need to be banned next so as the media can report on the horrors of that industry
1 JamesColesPardon 2016-05-30
It'd be a GREAT question for Bernie and Hillary to answer in California.
A guy can dream, right?
3 kingcubfan 2016-05-30
Amen to that! Are you feeling a little tired today? You probably are experiencing symptoms of dystalapia, take this blue pill and you will be better.
15 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-05-30
What I want to know is what are the going to blame for the lung cancer when no one smokes any more?
Do you think they'll finally admit it was air pollution all along?
3 poruss 2016-05-30
KiwiBattlerNZ knows the score and gets an upvote
9 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-05-30
The Official Story tm :
If you smoke and develop lung cancer, heart disease or a myriad of other common ailments - it's because of the smoking.
If you don't smoke but spend time around smokers and develop lung cancer, heart disease or a myriad of other common ailments - it's because of the second-hand smoke.
If you don't smoke and don't spend time around smokers but develop lung cancer, heart disease or a myriad of other common ailments, then it was a purely random event that had nothing whatsoever to do with the constant bombardment of toxic chemicals that corporations have unleashed into our biosphere.
If you do not believe the Official Story tm, you're a crazy conspiracy theorist shill paid by the tobacco companies to lie to the masses...
1 anarchopotato 2016-05-30
you can add the electromagnetism to the chems
1 BrewtalDoom 2016-05-30
You're completely wrong there chief. Smoking increases the chances of you developing lung cancer or heart disease. Nobody has ever said that smoking is the sole cause of lung cancer and nobody in their right mind has proclaimed that non-smoking-related lung cancer has nothing to do with any other carcinogenic materials they may have ingested.
-1 sliquidsnake 2016-05-30
False premise is false. Nicotine binds with p54 TNF. I.e., Nicotine causes cancer. I.e., smoking tobacco or vaporizing nicotine causes cancer.
When lung cancer decreases due to decreased smoking, do I think you'll finally admit it was smoking all along?
8 KiwiBattlerNZ 2016-05-30
So why do the majority of smokers not develop lung cancer? And why do people that have never smoked or lived with smokers develop lung cancer?
And why is it that Japan, with a higher incidence of smoking, has a lower incidence of lung cancer than the US?
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/91/5/12-108092/en/
Funny that.
4 varianlogic 2016-05-30
It's possible that diet and exercise have a greater effect on cancer rates than smoking. The immune system of many Americans is already so weakened that even mild carcinogens cause more trouble than they should.
Look at the honeybee situation - they aren't dying from any specific pathogen, it's normal bee diseases and their immune systems are just too weak to fight them off due to pesticides/nutrition/something. Sedentary humans eating junk food are no different to those bees.
2 metabolix 2016-05-30
tis true
2 Ramv36 2016-05-30
Isn't radon a far more prevalent cause of lung cancer among non-smokers than any other cause?
Maybe we need a few hundred billion budgeted to get people to stop snorting radon?
1 Seltsam 2016-05-30
Much of the country is in a radon problem zone. My house has a mitigation system, but I am still not convinced it matters much.
http://network-graphics.com/images/geology/radon_map_m.jpg
5 CaucasianEagle 2016-05-30
Tobacco is a strong american economic force. People also just smoked a cigarrette whereas today they take a pill. So i would say globalists and big pharma both wanted to see tobacco go away.
4 sciototrails 2016-05-30
Tobacco markets to the poorer and less developed cultures now. They are doing fine. Please consider that Satan is part of a convoluted mythology created to control the masses by the Romans. There are definitely humans who own the world and have been exposed. Use your energies to defeat them and use mythology to help you understand reality not to interpret it.
3 your-nuts-sir 2016-05-30
Were the early settlers who farmed tobacco Christian or Jewish. Were RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris Christian or Jewish.
Strike 1: In 1933, this factory was racially integrated more than thirty years before the law required it. In 1938, the company offered preferred stock to ordinary buyers.
Who knows?
But perhaps TPTB went after tobacco to furnish the illusion that they care. Or perhaps if more people got cancer then they would need to provide a real cure and not just milk patients of energy/money for profit.
3 returnofN 2016-05-30
It gave tobacco unlimited appeal to the underage by being forbidden and dangerous thank Stanford research institute for figuring out "rebel appeal" was the best way to increase sales
3 Ben_Wabawls 2016-05-30
The first "national" anti-smoking campaign came from Hitler's administration.
2 metabolix 2016-05-30
Here in India, public smoking has been banned recently! I was outraged to find this out, and very little backlash from the people and next to none coverage by the media.
2 illuminatiman 2016-05-30
Well if i think about it. Smoking causes many deaths a year. Those people who died could of been tax payers perpetuating the debt cycle. The Illuminati love taxes thus they want more people to live under their servitude.
2 groupthinkgroupthink 2016-05-30
Critical mass of research, add the internet for dissemination of research and the ability to obfuscate findings and trick people significantly decreased.
The social norm and perception changed, after that, the laws started to follow.
2 BoaconicNoblewomen 2016-05-30
If they carefully reinvest into other products there's no reason why they should lose out big. If the publics opinion has changed there's no point flogging a dead horse, just get a new horse.
2 911bodysnatchers322 2016-05-30
This may be very hard to believe, but sometimes you are right and sometimes you're wrong. In this case, sometimes the medical establishment has enough data to say that tobacco use causes primarily lung and secondarily mouth and esophogeal cancers. I mean this is about as uncontroversial a statement as I can make.
It's also the case that some people who see this data are actually trying to make the world better by trying to get people to stop using this particular product, knowing that it hurts people so much. Not everyone at the top is a gold darned psychopath, like everyone seems to think (with good reason).
As an ex-smoker I can tell you I started smoking because a girl I liked smoked. Then I spent the next decade and a half trying to quit the product. I quit at least 20 times, I got really good at quitting. Finally, though, I actually got good at not re-starting.
Making a post that tries to sympathize for RJ Reynolds and other tobacco companies fails to see that they sell a product that you use only a few times and creates lifetime consumers, all the while killing them. It's just not the same as doritos or guns or video games.
My God if only Doritos were as successful. I mean they seem as addictive if you eat just one, but when the bag is gone, you dont' find yourself tearing off the cushions of your sofa to find 3.50 in change to go a gas station in the middle of the night to get some more.
So if you want sympathy for tobacco companies, you won't get it from me. In fact, if I were an activist lawyer, I'd create a class action lawsuit that includes EVERY BUSINESS THAT IS NOT TOBACCO and sue tobacco for anticompetition because they sell a product that is 'more addictive than heroin', and thus have a product that sells itself, which is injurious to all my clients because they are not afforded the same competitive ease.
Then I'd do the same for sugar dealers
1 astrofreak92 2016-05-30
Nobody, because a homogenous "establishment" controlling global events over long time scales doesn't exist.
3 Conditioned_Soul 2016-05-30
Yeah you're right! All these systematically related things are happening by accident! Whew...
1 metabolix 2016-05-30
Sarcasm is a powerful way to break the truth. you're doing it right!
1 Conditioned_Soul 2016-05-30
Hey man I'm not being sarcastic, you must be some kinda conspiracy theorist!
1 Ramv36 2016-05-30
Just like evolution!
1 Conditioned_Soul 2016-05-30
Yeah! Darwin, who was a staunch eugenics supporter, came up with evolution by accident too, without ulterior motive!
1 VapingLiterateWolf 2016-05-30
Check out /r/electronic_cigarette for more info.