Ok heres another idea. Perhaps a tabacco co should start selling
extra expensive cigarettes which include a donation towards a media
campagn to inform that the tabacco co's are a bunch of murdering
fuckwits. In britain there is a brand of ciggys called DEATH and they
are expensive but I dont think they fuel any media campagn.
Actually since there is a large tax on ciggys I suppose
there is a pool of wealth which morally should be used in the propoganda
war. Its upto the govt, they should use the tax money for a media
campagn to counteract the tabacco inc's. But in the end we will all end
up in full time jobs in P.R. this will be considered a desirable end by
most poloticians in this country, personaly I think we will have arived
at hell on earth.
I keep coming back to this notion of feedback being the only
way, and since it is lies that fuel the propoganda arms race it should
be the liars that are targeted. Personally I would never kill a human
being, but then I cant speak for those who have got a week to live and a
grudge against the system that has murdered them.
> 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.
More arms races, these things will all work eventually but I was
looking for a shortcut.
>Does anyone care to address the issue of government's responsibility for
>controlling access to the media? I think it is government's responsibility
>to educate.
My own position on this is full of contradictions. I hate
censorship but I think the Tabacco co's should be 100 percent censored.
I suppose its the mechanism of paying for access to people's attention
that is ultimately so pernicious.
>
>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 would you have advised if one of them had told you of her
plan to murder a tabacco inc liar?
> 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>
Try fosters lager.
>... Perhaps the government <FDA in U.S.> won't let it
>be packaged in a decent flavor.
Very interesting point, can anyone reveal why nicotine cant have
its flavour disguised?
>
>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 people who were near the end of their life started killing
key personel from the mechanism which had shortened their life, a trans-
single-lifetime social contract would emerge.
> 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.
>
>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.
All this anti-killing stuff is just fancy high brow ideology.
Killing is happening. A simple murder has a simple atribution to a
single person. Tabacco deaths cannot be atributed to a single person
because the pathways are less direct. Personaly its the recriminations
that keep me in line. When one is close to death as you say the
recriminations diminish toward zero. Whats more if you are a believer in
contributing towards the collective good you might be tempted to come to
some murderous conclusions that would be the seeds of a new movement.
>
peace
Tony Hindle.