Calling every cigarette on Earth "tobacco" is SO Much Easier in many cases, though it may be a display of ignorance, lying, or a basis for perjury or consumer fraud charges. Think you or a friend or relative bought and got sick from tobacco? Think your hair or drapes got smelly from tobacco smoke? How do you know it was tobacco? You'd have to trust the notoriously deceitful cigarette industry to believe it was.
Listed below are 47 US Patents for processes to make Fake Tobacco, designed to "simulate tobacco" (to lie by appearances), though some patents are simply intended to provide a "nicer" nicotine-free product. No matter, all of this non-tobacco stuff is covered in "anti-tobacco"-"anti-smoking" laws. Even Electronic Cigarettes, dispensing nicotine with water vapor, not smoke, are covered under many "no smoke" laws. Where are the "No Water Vapor" signs?
The meanings of some words are being demolished, most troublingly in medicine, science, and law. That might be of concern even to the most innocent "clean air" activist anti-smokers. Remarkably, the US Patent Office has taken upon itself to change the definition of "tobacco" to mean anything, like the stuff covered in these patents, including wood pulp, corncobs, and sagebrush"for starters. Here's this from the US Patent Office site for Tobacco Substitute Material:
>> "The word "tobacco", as used in this class, is considered generic to any material which may be smoked or may be substituted for real tobacco." <<
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc131/defs131.htm
A lawyer, defending a tobacco ban violator at a "smoking" hearing, might ask "How do you know my client was smoking tobacco or allowing tobacco smoking, or that the smoke was Environmental Tobacco Smoke?" It is troubling to consider that modern science, medicine and law presumes (or pretends) that if it looks, smells, tastes and feels like a "tobacco product-- it is tobacco"without quotes or qualification. Not even air quotes or a wink-wink.
A word is whatever they want it to be, neither more nor less.
The deceit about "tobacco" serves the interests of the cigarette industry, their many ingredient suppliers, all their insurers and investors, and the sold-out officials (globally) who have enabled, protected and benefited from that cartel for decades. "Anti-tobacco" activists distract to blame the victims for "smoking", and to scapegoat the so-far unstudied (yet "evil") natural, public domain, tobacco plant. The effect, if not the goal, is to evade astronomical liabilities and penalties for not just whatever harms are caused by the fake tobacco, or the fraud, but for the many pesticide residues, dioxins from chlorine contaminants, radiation from certain fertilizers, burn accelerants, and any of over 1000 untested, often toxic non-tobacco additives, and for the psychopathic failure to warn about any of it.
A lawyer defending a smoke ban violator needs to ask, "When
you say 'tobacco', do you mean Fake Tobacco, or do you mean the actual plant, Nicotinia
Tabaccum?" Then, "Have any studies of
smoke from unadulterated Nicotinia Tabaccum been provided to show a Public
Interest justification for prohibitionary laws?" Our regulatory system provides or demands
no studies of the effects of smoking coffee bean hulls, popped corn, wood pulp,
eucalyptus leaves or any of the non-tobacco constituents of so-called "tobacco
products". For that matter, no studies
of certifiably plain tobacco have been presented either. Tobacco is being "convicted", so to speak,
without a trial. We don't know what we're talking, or legislating, about.
Q: If the US Patent Office has deemed that any cigarette stuffing can be called "tobacco", why don't cigarette makers simply label the products as "containing tobacco"? A lot of brands say nothing on labels about what's in the pack. We are to presume a brand is tobacco because it looks and tastes like tobacco, and is sold in a "tobacco shop", and hit with "tobacco taxes", and banned under "tobacco laws". Smokers, non-smokers, and anti-smoking activists have fallen for that.
Q: If anything is allowed in a cigarette and it can be called "tobacco", doesn't this provide a solution for disposal of nuclear waste? If people die from that...well... they were warned about "the harms of smoking".
The group "Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids" has not acknowledged that any number of kids who smoke, or are exposed to 2nd hand smoke, may already be tobacco-free. This "war" must remain focused on tobacco plants...on Mother Nature...and avoid the corporate crime and government corruption areas.
It is ironic that, since tobacco is the Sixth Most Pesticide
Intensive crop, it may be quite safer to smoke the fake stuff even though none
of that is likely organic. Ah, but even the concept of a Safer Cigarette is anathema to the establishment because that would open the Pandora's Box about maximally deadly cigarettes. Why liability lawyers don't look into this is a mystery.
NB: Many of these patents are about substitute material comprising part or ALL of a smoking product.
Patent No. 12,417 Cornstalks
97,962 Eucalyptus leaves.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
