Smoke bans are pushed by those who say it's about health and avoiding "tobacco smoke". Funny thing is that any number of brands may not contain any tobacco at all but, instead, fake tobacco made from industrial waste cellulose---paper, wood chips, peanut shells, you name it. ...with measured shot of nicotine added, of course. So if someone is caught violating a ban on tobacco smoke, it is necessary to assure that the smoke actually is tobacco smoke.
So, if a ban on using so-called "tobacco products" doesn't pass, health-concerned officials have an option. They can ban smoking products that contain toxic and cancer-causing pesticide residues, toxic and untested non-tobacco additives, cancer-causing PO-210 radiation from certain phosphate tobacco fertilizers, chlorine pesticides and chlorine-bleached paper that produces cancer-causing dioxins in the smoke, added burn accelerants, and the heaps of kid-attracting added sweets, flavorings, scents and soothing substances.
It's hard to imagine how all that got to be legal in the first place.
If municipal or state officials can't do that, they can push to have information about that printed on labels and on signs where cigarettes are sold. If they can't do that, they can simply and humanely publicize the information in media and in mailings to constituents.
They might also suggest and promote and even subsidize alternatives---uncontaminated, organic plain tobacco. After all, negative effects of plain tobacco have apparently not been determined in any studies submitted anywhere to courts, legislatures, or medical journals.
How officials can justify bans on something that hasn't yet been studied for risks or harms is a question.
Google up "Fauxbacco" for references for details.
Powered by Foundation