Illegal acts of Government,
Marketing with preventable deaths as the sales pitch.
At the same time refusing to prevent them.
This bears repeating;
If you as a smoker wish to regain your self-respect stop saying, you are sorry. Stop agreeing with the claims tobacco is dangerous in fact it is not, some cigarettes are, no one is interested enough to tell us which. Cigarettes are a legal product the use of which does not afford others the right to steal your rights as an individual; The right to employment, Housing, Healthcare and Security of the person under the law. If the government seeks to change the rules or the norm, they should do so with respect to all who are affected. Creating hate campaigns against their own citizens is a criminal act which should be punished. If you wish them to stop attacking you, your indefensible position as a smoker needs to be replaced by their indefensible position as promoters of hatred and paid industry stooges.
Your rights As posted in the British Medical Journal.
“The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognised in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining “informed consent” and is a recognised component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law. Remarkably, anti-tobacco and pro-tobacco sources alike have come to emphasise the message that there is “no safe cigarette” or “no safe tobacco product”. We propose that the “no safe” message is so limited in its value that it represents a violation of the right to health relevant information. There is a need to go beyond saying, “there is no safe tobacco product” to indicate information on degree of risks. The “no safe tobacco” message does not contradict, for example, the mistaken belief that so called light or low tar cigarettes are safer choices than higher tar cigarettes. We encourage a kind of “rule utilitarian” ethical position in which the principle of truth telling is observed while trying to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Although harm reduction approaches to easing the burden of tobacco related diseases are founded on science based comparative risk information, the right to health information is independently related to the need to promote health literacy. This right should be respected whether or not harm reduction policies are judged advisable.”
Proof of an unwillingness to act.
This email exchange with representatives of the Canadian government attempts to make the government aware of a public health issue affecting 6 million smokers as reported,
“Thousands of people could die unnecessarily as a result.” . Here is absolute proof they do not give a dam and the blinders are firmly in place.
The exchange reads from bottom up quite shocking.
--------------------------------
RepliesHello Kevin, Call the number I suggested and they can advise youThis is not under Product Safety.
Thankyou
Sue.
-------------------------------
2006-02-10 01:20 PM
To: Tor Prodsafe
Subject: Re: WWW Form Submission
Hello Sue;
I appreciate your quick response. The issues at the link I provided go well beyond the capabilities of a Tobacco control advisory. The issues are more properly issues of the federal Health and Environment Ministries. The assessments made suggest nothing is being done regarding Dioxins in Cigarettes and the environment, thousands of people could die unnecessarily as a result. Is the Government even aware of the Dioxin levels in cigarettes and how easily they could be removed?
Regards;
Kevin
-----------------------
Hello Kevin,
For your inquiry you can call the Tobacco Branch at 416-954-9825.
Thankyou
Sue (Kevin Deleted)
2006-02-06 12:49 PM
To: Tor_Prodsafe@hc-sc.gc.ca
Subject: WWW Form Submission Below is the result of your feedback form.
It was submitted by Kevin
on Monday, February 06, 2006 at 12:49:12
-------------------
realname: message:
I am trying to understand how the Government is positioned in the idea Dioxins in smoking are actually the primary cause of most cancers although not well reported in the popular media. I would like someone to interpret the following research I found at a smokers rights website. Could you let me know if this is valid, and if so is the Government planning to do something to stop it? If Dioxins are so dangerous it does make sense they do not belong in Tobacco products.
Best Regards;
Kevin
No comments:
Post a Comment