----------
>From: Gifford, Nate F[SMTP:giffon@SDCPOS3B.DAYTONOH.ncr.com]
>For those of you who just tuned in:
>Tony Hindle proposed that people dieing from smoking related illness
should
>consider using their last weeks on earth to kill tobacco executives.
Poetic perhaps, but probably impractical. I can imagine that few terminal
patients with emphysema, lung cancer, etc. retain the kind of physical
power that would enable them to evade the law / bodyguards after the word
gets out, etc. to commit an assassination. Heck, with lung problems
climbing steps is tough; it might be past reasonability to require the
terminally ill to chase down or ambush an executive type.
Besides, using the excuse of impending death to justify murder of your
"poisoner" is still creating evil to combat evil, thus increasing the
amount of evil in the world. I cannot view this as a favorable long-term
solution.
>I proposed that poetic justice dictates that you kidnap their progeny,
>infect them with AIDs and saddle them with a crack addiction.
Molesting and addicting the innocent is succumbing to the Dark Side of
the Force. I cannot agree with such a course.
>Tony pointed out that this would not deter executives without progeny.
He
>went on to propose that individuals dieing of smoking related illnesses
>should consider murdering people in the public relations industry
>responsible for promoting smoking.
Why not boycott their clients (noisily) in their entirety, until they get
the message and
quit accepting tobacco money? Similar tactics are being used now (with
mixed success) by the G&L groups, RightToLifers and other such. Economic
pressure is real pressure, hurting them in their pocketbooks where they
still have some sensory nerves.
>I also pointed out that in my mind governments are as responsible as the
>companies themselves since the government dictates the terms of the
>conflict. Here in America the government is about to allow the tobacco
>companies settle up once and for all on how liable they are. The
tobacco
>companies will float some bonds, raise the price of their product, and
get
>on trying to push their product. The government is also trying to
control
>the mechanisms the tobacco/alcohol companies have to push their product.
>In America the tobacco companies are not allowed to advertise on TV.
>Lately there has been talk about not allowing the hard liquor companies
>advertise on TV <they voluntarily did not advertise for years, but now
feel
>they need to gain back turf from the beer and wine manufacturers>. I've
>also heard rumors of legislation that would prevent tobacco companies
from
>advertising in print media.
>Tony Hindle wrote:
>>if the government is
>>ineffective at preventing joe public from being mass murdered by rich
>>powerful corporations in the name of profit then what the fuck use is
>>it?
>Does anyone care to address the issue of government's responsibility for
>controlling access to the media?
It has none. The media are there to spread the word, good, bad or
indifferent; I don't want the government deciding what I should hear, nor
what's good for me, nor what's right or wrong; all these are your own
PERSONAL responsibility, earned as a price for living.
> I think it is government's responsibility to educate.
Possibly, as long as they give FACTS and not PROPAGANDA.
>I've worked in a nursing home and I think I'm as aware as most doctors
as
>to the end results of smoking ... I've seen the trachs, the emphysema
>patients with only half a lung left who still smoke, etc. What I want
is
>an optimized nicotine delivery system ... one that minimizes the
delivery
>of harmful compounds EXCEPT nicotine. Nicotine gum comes close ...
>although for some reason it tastes like condensed piss.<a flavor I've
>imagined, not tried>... Perhaps the government <FDA in U.S.> won't let
it
>be packaged in a decent flavor.
My mother's father died from broken hips and kidney failure - although
losing 1 and 2/3 of his lungs to surgery after a lifetime of smoking
didn't help. Nicotine gum is fine, at least your lungs won't be damaged -
although plenty of other negative effects abound.
The FDA has been largely subsumed by the medical interests. We need to
abolish it or insist that at least 75% of the advisory boards /
evaluations / etc. be done by normal, responsible people not in the
employ of the medical community in any way - this will remove the control
of medicines and their approval from those who can profit by them.
>The ironic thing about Tony's original proposal is that the end of one's
>life is the best time to break the social contract. But, breaking the
>contract probably has the opposite effect that you'd think ... it
>solidifies your oppositions position, because the social contract IS the
>basis for most other memes. If you tie your position <ANTI anything> to
>harmful behaviors then society will react against your position in
>self-defense. This seems like the basis of civil disobedience. If you
>look at the shows on the history of civil rights you will see the same
>livid crackers complaining about niggers in their lunch rooms that
caused
>America to send in the troops in the late 50s early 60s. If you then
read
>the autobiography of Malcolm X where he talks about rape as a mechanism
for
>political change you begin to see the cracker's point.
Fighting hate and greed with murder and rape is futile.
>Its hard to say what the results of violence against PR firms would be
>since I'd look at it a lot like gassing stray dogs. No one really wants
to
>kill the pound puppies ... but it sure beats paying the bill to keep
them
>alive and comfortable. I think it was Congreve or Bacon who wrote that
>"First we kill the lawyers ... ". Perhaps society has progressed so
that
>"First we kill the admen, then we kill the lawyers ...". But, before we
>can do that we must first convince the world that they DESERVE to die.
Now
>how can we do that without a PR campaign? Of course with enough cash it
>shouldn't be a problem to get an ad agency to do the campaign and a
lawyer
>to absolve us of responsibility.
Excellent!
Consider: adding crime to hate and greed gains nothing. Involving the
government will complicate and mess things up even further. Use the
system to defeat the system?
<RANT ON!>
Right now Phillip Morris stock is about $45 US per share. For $45 you can
get to vote in their stockholders meetings, propose / support
anti-tobacco initiatives (PhilMo is more than a tobacco company, I've
held one share for three years and voted against the company
board-of-directors and for stockholder's dissent motions consistently)
and generally see to it that they recognize how widespread their policies
are detested.
If you are willing to put your money where your ideals are, you can have
an impact - and the most direct impact is through investing in that
company. You, alone, will have minimal impact - but if you and 1 million
of your friends can put up $45 apiece, one million voices will be heard
at the next stockholder's meeting. Eventually, you might be able to elect
a director who will voice your concerns as a member of the board - and so
forth. To conclude and meme-ify:
"Buy a share of Phillip Morris; Vote it against tobacco and for clean
living" or some such (there are probably better memesters here, or hire a
PR firm to sloganize for you).
<RANT OFF!>
Sorry for the long post, but I was trying to avoid a hate-for-hate
approach and felt a need to evangelize at the same time.
Cheers!
james