RJR eclipse

[sherid]

I think you're absolutely right. They're probably tired of being sued. Oh, and I fixed those source links.

Another thing that disturbs me is the way the politics of this thing is maneuvered. First it was about cancer. Then it was about that dirty, disgusting cigarette. Then it was about those terrible PEOPLE who justifiably should be treated as the filth of society.

Psychological manipulation that essentially provides a legal methodology of discriminating against certain groups.

And since it has shown mass-acceptance, they (the ones we should be suing for discrimination), are branching out to not only ostracize the smoker of even a non-nicotine product (see attempts to ban propylene glycol too), they are taking it even further and trying to tax not only the smoker, but the obese, those with diabetes and regulate salt and sugar in restaurants.

These are probably people who never worked an honest day in their lives. They sit around getting paid to think up ways to control your life, parent your children and make you miserable.

But the whole thing is quite hypocritical. They don't have the right to control anything and everything. Ultimately, they ARE discriminating against a group or groups of people. Perhaps the way to combat this is focus on the unjust labeling of people instead of just focusing on defending against their lawsuits? Put them on the defensive for once and let's see how they like it? I certainly don't see how they could defend what they are doing. We finally have a device that works in turning people's health around and they want it banned. Nothing is being done to stop the rampant discrimination of their labeling against certain groups that I can see.

It started decades ago with the Godber blueprint with these words.
Postby Rose » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:04 am
First Worldwide Conference Calls for Action on Many Fronts Against Cigarettes - 1967

A DIRTY AND DANGEROUS HABIT
"The smoker" chooses for his own gratification to introduce into his own personal
micro-environment the agent that will do him harm.
What we are trying to do is to persuade him that that voluntary act is not only a long term
threat to his future, but also an inducement to others to adopt the same folly.
We are in fact asking for an almost infinite number of acts at self-abnegation so that a dirty
and dangerous habit can be eliminated from our society."
Sir George E, Godber, M.D.,
Chief Medical Officer,
British Ministry of Health
London
Page 8
First Worldwide Conference Calls for Action on Many Fronts Against Cigarettes


SECOND WORLD CONFERENCE ON SMOKING AND HEALTH - 1971

"There was a feeling on the part of many participants that fear had failed as an instrument of persuasion, that apathy among the public had developed with respect to claims concerning smoking and health and that, in many instances, the matter had been cast in terms of morals rather than health.

15.
The Principle in an Anti-Smoking Cure and the Introduction of the Measuring of Carbon Monoxide.
Describes use of carbon monoxide measurements to scare patients.
"http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=ica61e00&page=1

Sir George to the rescue -
"In 1975, British delegate Sir George Godber informed the World Health Organization how to get smokers to quit: foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to the smoke in the air."

Sir George Godber; "Horace Joules and the Hope of Prevention"
27th January, 1978
Sir George quoted Joules' letter to the Lancet in 1953 which Ball had also referred to. In it he had criticised the Chief Medical Officer of Health's report which referred to the "mysterious and inexorable rise of lung cancer" after Doll and Hill's paper.
Joules had outlined the need for action then, and Sir George did not feel the action taken 25 years later was adequate. The WHO, for example, had made no move till 1970.

Sir George deplored the situation where it was illegal to advertise a cancer cure but legal to advertise smoking, a carcinogen.
He felt smoking should be seen as an infestation of the home, to be wiped out like head lice."
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/p ... 011035.pdf


Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri records the weaving of this growing web of deception, that has proved so successful that it has been used as a template for the social engineering projects that have followed since.


The Godber Blueprint

"In the 1970’s, the idea of disease attributed to smoking was questionable. The ‘death toll’, a statistical exercise, attributed to smoking was questionable. The idea of ‘nicotine addiction’ was questionable. A glaring absence in the literature and official reports was/is coherent causal argument. There was/is only the constant assumption of cause, made to substitute for explanation. All that was required in epidemiological circles is that a small group concluded that a relationship was causal for that relationship to be promoted so, i.e., ‘causation’ by consensus. (see also RASGD)

Many claims/conclusions made at the 3rd World Conference were anything but scientifically ‘settled’. A pertinent question, then, is who authorized denormalization/abnormalization/stigmatization of smokers? Who decided that it was ‘the way to go’? Who decided that ‘elimination of cigarette smoking’ was a coherent goal? It seems that it was this antismoking group at the 3rd World Conference that manufactured all the conclusions. Under the auspices of the World Health Organization, and under the banner of “Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”, this small group led by Godber (a WHO representative) decided that it had a definitive view of the world and smoking - the issues were “settled” - establishing a ‘blueprint’ for action. The overriding goal of the ‘blueprint’ was to eradicate smoking from public (indoor and outdoor) places through denormalization of smoking/smokers."
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

 

[Avanna]

It started decades ago with the Godber blueprint with these words.
Postby Rose » Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:04 am
First Worldwide Conference Calls for Action on Many Fronts Against Cigarettes - 1967

A DIRTY AND DANGEROUS HABIT
"The smoker" chooses for his own gratification to introduce into his own personal
micro-environment the agent that will do him harm.
What we are trying to do is to persuade him that that voluntary act is not only a long term
threat to his future, but also an inducement to others to adopt the same folly.
We are in fact asking for an almost infinite number of acts at self-abnegation so that a dirty
and dangerous habit can be eliminated from our society."
Sir George E, Godber, M.D.,
Chief Medical Officer,
British Ministry of Health
London
Page 8
First Worldwide Conference Calls for Action on Many Fronts Against Cigarettes


SECOND WORLD CONFERENCE ON SMOKING AND HEALTH - 1971

"There was a feeling on the part of many participants that fear had failed as an instrument of persuasion, that apathy among the public had developed with respect to claims concerning smoking and health and that, in many instances, the matter had been cast in terms of morals rather than health.

15.
The Principle in an Anti-Smoking Cure and the Introduction of the Measuring of Carbon Monoxide.
Describes use of carbon monoxide measurements to scare patients.
"http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=ica61e00&page=1

Sir George to the rescue -
"In 1975, British delegate Sir George Godber informed the World Health Organization how to get smokers to quit: foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to the smoke in the air."

Sir George Godber; "Horace Joules and the Hope of Prevention"
27th January, 1978
Sir George quoted Joules' letter to the Lancet in 1953 which Ball had also referred to. In it he had criticised the Chief Medical Officer of Health's report which referred to the "mysterious and inexorable rise of lung cancer" after Doll and Hill's paper.
Joules had outlined the need for action then, and Sir George did not feel the action taken 25 years later was adequate. The WHO, for example, had made no move till 1970.

Sir George deplored the situation where it was illegal to advertise a cancer cure but legal to advertise smoking, a carcinogen.
He felt smoking should be seen as an infestation of the home, to be wiped out like head lice."
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/p ... 011035.pdf


Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri records the weaving of this growing web of deception, that has proved so successful that it has been used as a template for the social engineering projects that have followed since.


The Godber Blueprint

"In the 1970’s, the idea of disease attributed to smoking was questionable. The ‘death toll’, a statistical exercise, attributed to smoking was questionable. The idea of ‘nicotine addiction’ was questionable. A glaring absence in the literature and official reports was/is coherent causal argument. There was/is only the constant assumption of cause, made to substitute for explanation. All that was required in epidemiological circles is that a small group concluded that a relationship was causal for that relationship to be promoted so, i.e., ‘causation’ by consensus. (see also RASGD)

Many claims/conclusions made at the 3rd World Conference were anything but scientifically ‘settled’. A pertinent question, then, is who authorized denormalization/abnormalization/stigmatization of smokers? Who decided that it was ‘the way to go’? Who decided that ‘elimination of cigarette smoking’ was a coherent goal? It seems that it was this antismoking group at the 3rd World Conference that manufactured all the conclusions. Under the auspices of the World Health Organization, and under the banner of “Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”, this small group led by Godber (a WHO representative) decided that it had a definitive view of the world and smoking - the issues were “settled” - establishing a ‘blueprint’ for action. The overriding goal of the ‘blueprint’ was to eradicate smoking from public (indoor and outdoor) places through denormalization of smoking/smokers."
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

Sherid, this is a must-read for anyone following the bans or just trying in general to figure out why society is looking at them cross-eyed every time they light up. And even for those who don't light up for they'll soon be next on the dictator's hit-list - no doubt about it.

I'm printing this out and stapling it to the next release form a doctor makes me sign every time I refuse to take another test, including those stupid Vizi-lite Dental Lesion Tests (that don't distinguish between benign, malignant or even injured tissue) because I "used to be a smoker". I've undergone three unnecessary biopsies in the 10 years that I did smoke, costing thousands of dollars, just to find out I had two canker sores and one TINY mouth burn. Come to find out, oral cancer is extremely rare but their charging me for smoking during and after is becoming a commonplace medical nightmare.

They're making money off of this scam hand over fist. Now, it's not even a matter of IF you presently smoke, they're making money off of IF you used to smoke, too. From now on, I'm not even going to tell them that I ever smoked. Let them figure it out. I just want my teeth cleaned not an oral interrogation.

I apologize for the fuming rant here. I'm rather new to this and your post was most informative and empowering. I can't thank you enough for enlightening me more than I ever expected.

 

[Windsage]

Premier cigarettes Smokers didn't give Premier a chance, its maker maintains.
High-tech cigarettes
Despite such criticism, the major cigarette makers have attempted to market several versions of safer cigarettes. In 1988, RJR introduced a high-tech cigarette called Premier. Premier, touted as a virtually smokeless cigarette that dramatically reduced the cancer-causing compounds inhaled by smokers, was made of aluminum capsules that contained tobacco pellets. The pellets were heated instead of burned, thereby producing less smoke and ash than traditional cigarettes. Although the product looked like a traditional cigarette, it required its own instruction booklet showing consumers how to light it.

From the beginning, Premier had several strikes against it. RJR had spent an estimated $800 million developing the brand, and the total cost was expected to soar to $1 billion by the time it was placed in national distribution. The costly project was put into test market just as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. had embarked on a $25 billion leveraged buyout of RJR that had saddled the company with debt. And the cigarette faced a lengthy regulatory battle after public health officials argued it should be regulated by the FDA as a drug. But the biggest problem with Premier was the fact that consumers simply couldn't get used to it. Many smokers complained about the taste, which some smokers said left a charcoal taste in their mouths. RJR had also gambled that smokers would be willing to give Premier several tries before making a final decision about whether to smoke it. RLR estimated that to acquire a taste for Premier, smokers would have to consume two to three packs to be won over. But as it turned out, most smokers took one cigarette and shared the rest of the pack with friends, and few bothered to buy it again. RJR scrapped the brand in early 1989, less than a year after it was introduced.

I can offer some further information on this part of the story. I had a pack of Primier's when they first came out. They were being test marketed in North Carolina and some friends bought some and we all had a pack or two. I smoked most of one of them. It was the worst idea ever. The taste was horrible, and they had their own unique smell. Lighting one of them in a closed room was the equivalent of yelling "pull my finger". I never finished an entire Premier, and of the 4-5 of us that tried them, I do not think any of the others did either. That pack laid around the house for a long time. Sometimes when someone wanted a ciggy I would offer them one. Even though Premier's were the real beginning of what we now know as E-cigs, they were many years from being a viable product.

Much of this can be blamed on the FDA. It was RJR's belief that if they did not use the actual tobacco leaf in the product, it would be labeled a drug delivery device and banned. I find it amazing that we in the U.S. extoll the virtues of the free market while constantly attempting to eliminate it.

 

[duke118]

I smoked eclipse for 4 years could only buy them at 1 seven eleven on long island.lol What most people don't understand is what they do to smokers they can do to anyone.Soon enough meat,sugar,salt will be taxed and then made illegal like smoking will be soon. I know I sound like an alarmist but it wont sound crazy 10 to 20 years from now.