It’s the fossil fuel/petrochemical contaminants from toxic industry which provide traces in tobacco smoke of some of the same pollutants destroying the Earth: toxic heavy metals, petrochemicals, the nitrosamines introduced to the food and tobacco supply because natural amines in exposed plants are warped into nitrosamines by industry poisons, – these are not inherent in consumable plants.
They are a reducible, if profitable/cost-saving, hazard created by powerful corporations beside which ‘Big Tobacco’ is revealed essentially as a dwarf, typically with each manufacturer only one of many subsidiaries of such conglomerate giants.
How much control do the actual tobacco companies typically really have, even over their own policies?
The air, indoors and out, has long since since been poisoned – if often in a humanly undetectable fashion – through industry profiteering having nothing to do with smoking or the choice of any among the general public.
If there had been any real concern over the supposed toxicity of cigarette smoke, as opposed to toxic industry profit and cost-saving, mining, industrial, and, in the U.S., outright designated toxic waste would not be permitted to be sold as/in unlabelled fertilizer to poison crop and grazing land – the entire food and water supply, not ‘merely’ scapegoat herbal tobacco plants only in which such otherwise ‘acceptable’ levels are a subject of official claimed concern – not to reduce such added toxins but to eliminate the users of the plant.
Instead of sensible action being taken in protecting human health and the planet, such practices were declared ‘acceptable’ (saving the cost of many toxic waste sites being maintained by various corporations since the wastes were too deadly to continue dumping in waterways and elsewhere) and the toxic RIP cigarette – with secret ingredients – enforced in sales of commercial cigarettes on a global basis.
While the particle type determines the hazard of exposure in a multitude of ways, these not provided by tobacco smoke in the manner of hard-cored particulate from fossil fuel emissions, the very consistency of tobacco ash has been demonstrably altered (at least in the Canadian version) in the globally enforced RIP cigarette.
Whereas tobacco ash is very soft and easily smears onto a tissue for wipe-up if spilled or dropped, the RIP ash is gritty – possibly specifically changed so that the altered particles can now imbed and remain within a smokers’ lungs in the manner of fossil fuel particulate and begin at long last to produce, perhaps, the blackened signs of damage suffered by coal miners, the diesel-exposed and big-city dwellers but never smokers per se of real tobacco, despite massive PR transference campaign claims.
But, according to the claims of industry, acting through PR as ‘Public Health’ and various CEO’s and other Big Business interests elected/hired into ‘democratic government’, making a supposedly toxic product more toxic can’t possibly matter – this attitude applied, if more discretely, to the food supply and all else, as well – and you can’t make a safer cigarette by reducing toxic additives like unlabelled fertilizers loaded with deadly industrial wastes to contaminate crops of all types and anyway, even entirely unknown combinations of potentially hundreds of thousands of artificial industry chemicals can’t harm you, only (competing) hazards like natural herbs and vitamins and democracy can…
And smokers are killing themselves and everyone else anyway so who cares if they die, as long as no virtuous non-smokers are dragged down with them?
(Applying also to the suddenly contagious! fat and the [unable-to-purchase-products] poor and the expensive, self-created [chemical-laden immune-damaged] adult-onset diabetics and all the others who don’t matter at any given point in time to those few who do matter…)
This is a pogrom, make no mistake, conducted in the midst of democracies around the globe, but it’s OK this time because the targets are smelly, ugly baby-killers, threatening the ‘good’ population and manipulating back-room power in attempts to take over the world – just like last time.
Sacrifices must be made for the good of public health and the children…

However, if the dilute smoke of even these enforced toxic, stinky RIP cigarettes was so deadly as to provide a serious and immediate threat (warning, heart attack in 30 minutes after fuse is lit, now counting down…) to non-smokers, smokers likely wouldn’t make it through a pack – any more than somebody could long survive while daily directly inhaling the same mass of diesel fumes as a 20-a-day smoker inhales of tobacco smoke.
So what are the antis demonstrating that they know, now that they’ve become so paranoid about even an outdoor sniff of the globally-enforced, secret-ingredient, off-shore-grown-with-GM-tobacco-seed RIP cigarettes they’ve forced those refusing to knuckle under to smoke?
In the meantime, (non-smoking) increasingly often hermaphrodite fish (well away from 2nd-hand smoke but not from carcinogenic/hormone mimicing endocrine disruptors) are frequently so loaded with industrial toxins that one mustn’t indulge too often, with oceans likely to be effectively dead of the effects of industrial pollution within about another 20 years of increasing industrial abuse.
I can’t wait until we’re hearing the antis claim that the Beluga whales dying of cancer, testing as being so loaded with industrial chemicals as to have their corpses labelled as dangerous toxic waste, were doomed because people smoked near the waters edge.
Or perhaps that’s next?
And why does the general public suppose public attention and censure is redirected away from powerful industry processes, products and pollution to, initially, the most vulnerable among the public themselves – with globally orchestrated PR demands, echoed by the vindictive and unthinking, that democratic personal autonomy be taken away from us all ‘for our own good’ while commercial enterprise determines what we’re allowed to buy, think and do, and establish expanding precedent that – contrary to the very definition of democracy, as well as various democratic Constitutions created to prevent such abuse – those more powerful make arbritrary decision as to which groups of citizens will be allowed to participate and/or be considered in public policy discussion, work, reside in a building, exist at all – on a global, co-ordinated basis?
And yet some – with no knowledge, one presumes, of the mysterious and strangely unpublicized RIP cigarette – are obediently scared of historically present tobacco smoke, or pretend to be, in mindlessly engaging in a first-ever opportunity to discriminate against an identifiable group without repercussion, indeed being praised as a ‘good citizen’ for this.
The ‘right to clean air’ argument now used is the argument previously used by aware members of the public against various powerful, government-linked industries pouring out billions of tons of pollutants annually and resisting the reduction in profit involved in lessening the levels of toxins released which not only create skyrocketing health issues suffered and paid for by the public, but are destroying the very Earth – this attempt by the public at gaining public/environmental protection from industry abuses twisted by industry into diversionary attack against the smoking public, in a successful PR attempt at distraction and legislative control by industry as well as in the traditional transference of blame for disease causation.
And every time anybody takes advantage of the government-backed anti strategy to attack the vulnerable among us, they bring us ALL another step closer to utter disaster, slavishly doing the bidding of toxic industry’s in focussing on the wisp of smoke before their eyes and ignoring the log-jam of often invisible hazard it’s used to conceal.
I can understand why you swear at them…

You covered a lot of essential points in your answer and pinned the heart of a strategy also using created smoking issues as a diversionary tactic intended to separate each population into divisive and powerless segments, each looking for someone more vulnerable to blame, rather than at the actual lucrative health and other industry threats, including those directly to civilization through this very PR technique, denormalizing the acceptance within democracy of each other as equals and substituting a petty, obsessively self-centred outlook and tendency to claw at and demand restrictions on each other rather than dealing with real, impending doom.
Divide and conquor, because if it’s OK to separate and rank people as ‘worthy, worthier and worthless’ according to monetary value and influence, rather than equally entitled to equal rights, treatment and opportunity, being of equal intrinsic human worth, then it’s OK for those fiscally worth most to do as they please to all below, all the way down.
Also, I hear a lot of comparison between tobacco smoke and combustion engine exhaust, stating that predominately the same or similar components are present in each.
Not just from people ignoring the industrial toxic flood to complain about one of all objects splattered in the rush, but from many of those trying to bring concern back to actual threats rather than distractions being used against us in a multitude of ways.
With regard to the health effects of vehicle exhaust, diesel presents the worst threat, with commercial uses having evaded the degree of emission reduction achieved in passenger vehicles – and with the tiny, deadly, solid-cored diesel particulate, bearing up to 18,000 adsorbed chemicals including the two most carcinogenic known, capable of remaining in the lungs until after death, with lung cancers found in the areas of highest diesel particulate concentration in rare independent study.
According to http://www.scorecard.org/env-rel…hap_diesel.html
‘Diesel emissions are the predominant source of cancer risk in Scorecard’s assessment of hazardous air pollutants. Inclusion of diesel emissions in EPA’s National-Scale Assessment of Air Toxics has totally transformed our scientific understanding of which chemicals and pollution sources are responsible for the largest part of the air toxics problem. Previous analyses (like EPA’s Cumulative Exposure Project) have focused only on hazardous air pollutants listed under the federal Clean Air Act and did not include diesel emissions. Now that estimates of diesel particulate concentrations are available from NATA, it is clear that the cancer risks from diesel emissions are about ten times higher than the cancer risks from all other hazardous air pollutants combined. For the U.S. as a whole, the average cancer risk associated with diesel emissions is 580 per million – 80% of the total estimated cancer risk from all hazardous air pollutants (740 per million).’
‘Using monitoring data collected from ten stations in the South Coast Air Basin during 1998, the SCAQMD estimates that the average carcinogenic risk in the Basin is about 1,400 per million people, with a range from about 1,120 in a million to about 1,740 in a million among the ten sites. This risk range is consistent with Scorecard’s cancer risk range for counties in the air basin: 630 – 1,500 per million.’
The above does not include extensive non-cancer risks, ranging from damage to the unborn to asthma, also being carefully attributed to tobacco smoke in widespread PR by various interests.

No wonder the EPA, with so many political appointees from fossil-fuel and other industry interests, had to be forced to release such results.
(You’ll have to cut-and-paste and Google the top lengthy title (a later re-release was evidently censored) of Pennfuture to find, since posts with more than one URL are held back for however long – and I haven’t seen these specific points made here yet???
I probably won’t be back this way again.
The following was evidently estimated prior to the work EPA refused to do being conducted as described in the article above by a less industry-controlled group.
‘PennFuture Claims New EPA Report Fails to Warn that Diesel Exhaust Poses Greatest Air Toxics Risk: U.S. Has Eight Times Greater Cancer Risk from Diesel than the Risk from the 133 Air Toxics Reported in EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment’
‘Pennsylvania Eighth Dirtiest State for Lethal Diesel Pollution’
‘Carlisle, Pennsylvania – Clean Air Task Force (CATF), Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture) and the Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania called on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to “tell us the whole truth,” in response to EPA’s release of its National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) today, estimating that people in the US, as a whole, are exposed to a risk from 133 toxic air pollutants that is 42 times the one-in-a-million risk of cancer that EPA considers safe. However, EPA declined to estimate the risk of exposure to diesel exhaust despite their conclusion that “diesel exhaust is among the substances that the national-scale assessment suggests poses the greatest relative risk.”
‘CATF found the nationwide average lifetime cancer risk posed by diesel exhaust to be 365 times greater than EPA’s “acceptable” level of one cancer in a million and over eight times higher than the risk of the 133 air toxics tracked by EPA combined. CATF quantified national risk from exposure to diesel exhaust using EPA’s NATA diesel exhaust concentrations combined with a cancer risk factor developed by the California Air Resources Board.
‘Clean Air Task Force senior scientist, Bruce Hill said: “Today’s data from EPA shows that diesel exhaust poses a greater risk of cancer than all the other air toxics EPA tracks combined, yet nearly all 13 million diesel engines in use in the lack emissions controls. The single most important step in reducing cancer risk from air toxics is to reduce diesel exhaust, and today’s retrofit technologies can reduce particulate matter exhaust from many diesel engines by 90 percent,” he added.
‘ “The data in this report is grim enough, but the information EPA withheld on diesel exhaust is even more alarming,” said Heather Sage, director of outreach for PennFuture. ” Pennsylvania is the eighth dirtiest state for lethal diesel pollution. We need to take action now to protect our health and lives.
‘ “Diesel exhaust poses a greater cancer risk than all the other air toxics emitted in Pennsylvania combined, with 456 Pennsylvanians per million getting cancer from diesel pollution,” she continued. “Congress should act this year to fully fund the Diesel Emissions Reductions Act’ so that we can begin now to clean up ‘s-and the Commonwealth’s- dirty diesels. At the state level, we are calling for regulations to limit unnecessary idling from diesel vehicles, especially trucks, and for the state to require clean or retrofitted diesel engines for all state-contracted work, as well as other actions.” ‘
(Diesel is only one of many industrial/product hazards known to be causing health problems/premature death/ecological damage attributed instead to victim blame, specifically to personal choices of smoking, diet and exercise, despite all historical and scientific proof otherwise.)
And so Pennsylvania got a diversionary smoking ban…
Endless ‘smoking-related’ diseases could have been prevented if the personal choice/smoking scapegoat hadn’t been allowed for use over what’s approaching the past century in protecting toxic industry from spending some of their profits on essentials like compensation to sick/dying workers, emission reduction and safer alternatives…