Do you think Big Tobacco was dishonest?
What about the previous generations who had no such warnings? I may come off as unforgiving, but I don't think we should discount the past.
There are more alcohol deaths than tobacco. No one gets a DUI smoking.
Lenina Huxley: Ah, smoking is not good for you, and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat...
Lenina Huxley: Bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal, but then again so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence.
Demolition Man is a bad vision for the future. So, the attack on the cigarette companies is only a start. It must be stopped.
Comparing death tolls of tobacco and alcohol is irrelevant to the topic, nevertheless more people die from tobacco than alcohol.
"Almost six million people die from tobacco use and 2.5 million from harmful use of alcohol each year worldwide, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports."
//"Demolition Man is a bad vision for the future. So, the attack on the cigarette companies is only a start. It must be stopped." // Cezar
I can understand your resistance to making substances illegal. In fact, I think cannabis, also known as hemp should be legalized. Yet, this post has nothing to do with making cigarette's illegal. I wouldn't want cigarette's to be illegal, it would probably just create a black market like prohibition.
More importantly, all humans have a moral obligation to the truth. The tobacco companies lied to the public and are guilty of conspiracy and fraud.
There are more alcohol deaths than tobacco. No one gets a DUI smoking.
Look at all the people who die getting hit by a drunk, or beat to death by a drunk and so forth.
Smoking causes you to drink more.
"Studies have found that people who smoke are much more likely to drink, and people who drink are much more likely to smoke (2)." "
It was. Never told the fact how it would destroy your health.
Yes, I would say that Big Tobacco betrayed the public.
I like the idea of hemp also known as pot as fiber.
I am a smoker and at no time was a forced by the "Big Tobacco" companies to do so. Nobody put a gun to my head and said you should smoke. It is a choice I made on my own. If we want to blame "Big Tabasco" companies what about the "Big Alcohol" companies they have done far worse while nobody forces people to drink their product causes accidents and sometimes instant death do to impaired drivers.
Is it okay for them to get away with it? Why is nobody attacking them in the same manner?
Nobody forced you to smoke, but the industry did deceive the public, this is both fraud and conspiracy.
Thousands of internal tobacco industry documents released through litigation and
whistleblowers reveal the most astonishing systematic corporate deceit of all time. What
follows is a survey of the documents, 1,200 relevant and revealing quotes grouped under
As for alcohol, the difference is that beer manufacturers don't deny that their products causes intoxication.
Do you think all companies are honest? Ever wonder just how many are deceptive? I bet there a lot more out there.
I personally don't feel like they deceived me. I knew the risks when I started smoking which was in 1992 when I was 13 years old. There was a warning on them then in fact there has been warning labels on cigarettes since 1965 as part of the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.. Actually its been stated in different ways over the years.
In 1984, a law was passed call the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act. Which required cigarette companies every three months to change the warning labels on cigarette packs. Below are the four that was created and rotated on packs of cigarettes. People were given the knowledge since the 40s that cigarettes cause cancer but nobody listened and now its "Oh we were lied to and deceived because we failed to heed the warning". I see that as a people problem not the tobacco companies problem. Even if I didn't smoke I would still side for the tobacco company.
Tobacco companies targeted children. Knowing the substance was addictive and caused lung cancer. Second hand smoke is not a choice, addiction is not a choice.
"Chapter 1 Smoking and health
Publicly the industry denied and continues to deny that it is
clear that smoking causes lung cancer - yet it has understood the carcinogenic nature of its
product since the 1950s. It is now clear that the industry’s stance on smoking and health is
determined by lawyers and public relations concerns.
Chapter 2 Nicotine and addiction
Until recently the industry has denied its product is
addictive. Most recently it has used a definition of addictiveness so broad that it encompasses
shopping and the Internet. Internally, it has known since the 1960s that the crucial selling point
of its product is the chemical dependence of its customers. Without nicotine addiction there
would be no tobacco industry. Nicotine addiction destroys the industry’s PR and legal stance
that smoking is a matter of choice.
Chapter 3 Marketing to children
The companies deny that they target the young. The
documents reveal the obvious - that the market of young smokers is of central importance to the
Did you know that alcohol is involved in 60% of violent crimes and 30% of suicides? Plus why don't they have to change their advertising? Gotta be fair besides one is worse than the others. I ain't heard a case where someone left their side of the road while smoking and killed a family.
I don't feel I was targeted as a child nor do I feel my children are/were, my oldest is 18 and no she doesn't smoke in fact she hates it. All my children do. I don't smoke indoors either.
You said "addiction is not a choice" but don't you have to choose the product in order to become "addicted" to it.
As for alcohol, again beer, wine, and whiskey commercials don't lie to the public.
I'm not talking so much about the 80's and beyond. I'm talking about before you were born. You shouldn't be worried about your children being lied to as much as your parents and grandparents.
As for choosing an addicting product, the problem again is that the tobacco industry denied that substances in smoke were addicting. Do you see the difference between consuming a product that you know is addicting versus a product that you were told was not addicting, but in reality is?
There is a big difference, in one you make a choice to consume an addicting substance, in the other you were conned into an addicting substance.
But if a product has stated since 1965 that it might be harmful to your health why choose to do it.
Shouldn't that warning be enough?
Do we really need to hold the hand of the public 24/7?
Right, but what about before 1965?
Also, drinking causes you to smoke and smoking causes you to drink. Therefore, a large portion of deaths related to alcohol can be blamed on tobacco.
// "Alcohol and tobacco1 are among the top causes of preventable deaths in the United States (1). Moreover, these substances often are used together: Studies have found that people who smoke are much more likely to drink, and people who drink are much more likely to smoke (2)." //
I know plenty of people that drink that wouldn't smoke if their life depended on it and vice versa so I think those statistics are flawed.
I believe you are telling your version of the truth. Yet, the problem of anecdotal evidence is that it has little weight compared to empirical evidence.
You know what, between 4 and 300 people that smoke and or drink or so right? Many cohort studies involve thousands if not 10,000s of people. Often, there is multiple cohort studies on the same subject, often in different geographical locations.
The law of averages states that large sample sizes will result in reliable numbers.
// "law of averages
The principle holding that the relative frequency with which an event occurs in repeated trials will converge to a stable value over time as the number of samples increases. Also called Bernoulli's law, law of large numbers." //
// "Subjects: People aged 30-64 and economically active in 1970 (927 470 men and 486 130 women)." //
I know some projects that I did in college back in 2013 it was really easy to sway the numbers to make appear to what a person wanted the public to believe vs actual facts. After gaining this tid bit of knowledge I wasn't so impressed with them.
We did something similar in the six sigma course that I took last year for work.
Numbers are great but they can be easily altered to persuade your attended audience.
That's why peer reviewed journals are important. You can't get a more reliable source of information.
// " However, the limited evidence available suggests that such factors exist and that the strength of the association between alcohol and tobacco use behaviors varies with the levels of alcohol use. Public health interventions focused on concurrent tobacco and alcohol use could yield further reductions in the morbidity and mortality associated with these substances." //
I sure hope so