# Are Truth ads fair? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2002, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894 "2002-04-05T00:09:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Demosthenesian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Demosthenesian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demosthenesian)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/21 "2002-04-05T16:28:16Z")
If an individual supplies an known alcoholic with enough booze to drink themselves to death, and stands by and lets them do it, are they legally culpable? That would seem to be the proper way to judge tobacco companies. (Well, post-SG warning. Previous to that they were substantially worse). As for the usefulness of ads? Those graphic and disgusting ads on Canadian cigarette packs are supposedly encouraging people to quit. (Sorry, no cite; read it in a Toronto daily) They’re ticking off smokers, yeah, but that’s kind of the point, and as a non-smoker I couldn’t care less. Same with all the bleating about anti-smoking laws in bars and restaurants and the like. People will still eat out if they can’t smoke. If they don’t, hey, less of a lineup at the better restaurants for me. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/22 "2002-04-05T16:52:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*The long and the short of it was that a lawyer for one of the tobacco companies (I think Phillip Morris, but unfortunately I don’t recall) was warning them that their ads were violating the settlement terms, and that if they continued to violate those terms they would lose their funding. > > In what I consider to be representative of my opinion of the truth folks, they basically mocked the letter on their page. I’m not really defending the tobacco companies in any way, here, but I think these truth people need to tone down the exaggerated rhetoric.\*\* The letter appears on the Foundation’s site, at [americanlegacy.org](http://americanlegacy.org). The company is Lorillard Tobacco, and here are some quotes from both sides: > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Ronald Milstein of Lorillard 1/18/02 > _It has become abundantly clear that ALF’s “truth” campaign_ (note from mobo85: the name of the campaign, truth[sub]SM[/sub], is uncapitalized) \* is not about conveying the truth about tobacco products to the American public, so much as vilifying and personally attacking tobacco companies and their employees…in large part the message [of “truth”]…is that the participating manufacturers [i.e., participating in the settlement of the tobacco lawsuit] and their executives are dishonest…malicious, or otherwise unscrupulous. This is precisely what is forbidden in [the agreement]…\* > [@](#): > > Lorillard’s threats are unwarranted and outrageous. In my view, they’re a smokescreen to hide the company’s real goal, which is to crush the truth campaign because it’s working to stop kids from smoking…The drop-off in youth smoking rates is costing the tobacco industry a great deal of revenue, and that’s why Lorillard is desperate to stop truth. Would Lorillard be trying to stop the truth campaign if it WEREN’T helping to reduce youth smoking and tobacco industry revenues? > -Dr. Cheryl Healton, President and CEO, American Legacy Foundation®, from an ALF press release > [@](#): > > I will not deny that truth[sub]sm[/sub] ads are edgy and hard-hitting. They use irreverent humor that adults may not sometimes understand. We do not apologize for this. [The Foundation states the main target of the truth campaign is teenagers-M85] Indeed, these are the very qualities that make the campaign effective. truth ads are designed to reach and grab the attention of teenagers…They are not designed to reach the members of the Afternoon Tea and Garden Club. They have to be tough and edgy to be effective with kids-anybody who has ever spent five seconds with a teen knows that. > > Lorillard has an anti-smoking campaign for youth…the “Tobacco is Whacko if You’re a Teen” campaign…[which] is a truly whacko campaign. If you tell a teenager who is open to smoking…tobacco is whacko FOR TEENS, and that teen wants to be a grown-up, what is the result? That teen may very well light up one of Lorillard’s cigarettes. > -Dr. Heaton, from a press confrence on Lorillard’s threats, 1/22/02 The Foundation has filed suit in the state of Delaware to stop Lorillard from killing the truth campaign. For the full text of Lorillard’s letter, and information via press releases and the complaint filed with the court, visit [americanlegacy.org](http://americanlegacy.org). (I just realized the Foundation’s name can be abbreviated to ALF. Ha! I kill me.) ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/23 "2002-04-05T17:02:22Z")
Screw fair, what about effective? I submit that any campaign, regardless of its goals, that uses exaggeration and/or false claims is doomed to failure - especially one that (as the Truth campaign is) is targeted at teenagers. Kids will find out the ‘Truth’ and will afterwards disregard **both** the messenger and the message, as yet another adult lying to them. That is the last thing the American Legacy Foundation should want to have happen. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Demosthenesian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Demosthenesian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demosthenesian)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/24 "2002-04-05T17:08:45Z")
Suasponte: Exaggeration and false claims aren’t even necessary, either, as the relative success of the Canadian campaign proves. (Or would, if I could find a bloody cite). Then again, there’s false and then there’s false. The “urea” bit was just a clever misdirection, not an out-and-out lie. The idea that there are rather disturbing chemicals in cigarette smoke isn’t exactly a new idea, and (as far as I ever knew) fairly well supported. The key question, however, is whether the truth ads are working. A smoker saying “they don’t affect me, I’m completely rational in my desire to smoke, I have a right to smoke, and it’s all just a gubmint conspiracy” doesn’t make for great proof. Anybody got stats? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/25 "2002-04-05T17:26:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Demosthenesian \* > \*\*If an individual supplies an known alcoholic with enough booze to drink themselves to death, and stands by and lets them do it, are they legally culpable? That would seem to be the proper way to judge tobacco companies. \*\* To make matters worse, the tobacco companies don’t just supply the substance. They actually encourage its consumption. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/26 "2002-04-05T17:47:36Z")
Yeah, then someone like me, a free thinking independent decision making individual goes to the store, buys a pack of cigarettes, opens it, takes one out, puts it in my mouth and applies fire to the other end of it. Damn those tobacco companies, for they profit off of the personal decision I make to use their product. I decided to start smoking, but Phillp Morris and RJ Reynolds bear full responsibility for that decision. If I’ve ended up with an addiction because of a decision I made, it must be the tobacco companies’ fault. They made me do it. I am not personally responsible for any decisions I make, especially not stupid ones. It’s all their fault. And there is prime ocean front property in Arizona. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/27 "2002-04-05T18:10:18Z")
Ah, **mobo** , thanks a bunch. I still wish the response I read from the truth folks was available, but the others are interesting, too. I think the letter from Lorillard is rather clear: \*[The fact that truth is attacking and vilifying tobacco companies] comes as a matter of great disappointment to Lorillard, as the MSA sets forth in details ALF’s permissible functions and the manner in which ALF may use Fund money. Even more importantly, the MSA expressly provides that the Fund may not be used "for any personal attack on, or vilification of, any person (whether by name or business affiliation), company, or governmental agency, whether individually or collectively [ALF] shall work to ensure that its activities are carried out in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner… Rather than focus on the products themselves, in large part the message of the “truth” campaign is that the participating manufacturers and their executives are dishonest, deceitful, callous, malicous, or otherwise unscrupulous.\* I think this letter is very clear, and if they are indeed quoting directly from the MSA then truth has some serious explaining to do. The first response to the letter (all of which can be found [here](http://www.americanlegacy.org/section.asp?location=content/press/press_static/lorillard_filing.asp)) _fails to mention anything about the simple fact that they seem to be violating the agreement_, the very agreement which secures the funds they have. How quaint, and entirely predictable. I’d quote the letter, but you can’t prove a negative. This letter, by chairperson Christine Gregiore, completely misses the point. Another response to the Lorillard letter, by Dr Cheryl Heaton, the President and CEO of ALF, is apparently a transcript of the press conference she called to handle this letter. Here are some interesting quotes (some are repeats of **mobo** ’s quotes): > [@](#): > > The truth campaign has not engaged in personal attacks or vilification of Lorillard or anyone else… > > Anyone who has seen truth ads know that they educate young people about the addictiveness, health effects, and social costs of tobacco, which is exactly what the Master Settlement Agreement says they must do… > > truth ads are designed to reach and grab the attention of teenagers who are most likely to smoke. They are not designed to reach the members of the Afternoon Tea and Garden Club… Apparently, and not without irony, it seems to be _irrelevant_ to the truth campaign that they are, in fact, doing exactly what Lorillard has accused them of. If this gets shot down in court, I will be very, very upset with the legal system. Though, hey, it wouldn’t be the first time. Look at DOMA. :rolleyes: Anyway… ALF is simply trying to play it off, “Hey, we’re doing a good thing, and the evil Illuminati are trying to stop us by citing the very laws we are bound by.” Sorry, “truth”, but IMO you are going to have to do better than that. > [@](#): > > This is education, not vilification – and it saves lives. Education? As noted by a poster above, why don’t you educate them about what is in our water supply? In the air we breathe disregarding cigarette smoke pollutants? Clearly, you are deliberately misleading the viewing audience in an attempt to do what you feel is the correct thing to do. In my book, that’s downright immoral, and I hope to hell illegal. > [@](#): > > So if the truth campaign is not about vilification, what is the basis of Lorillard’s action? I believe this action is a smokescreen to hide Lorillard’s real goal, which is to crush the truth campaign because it is working to stop kids from smoking. :rolleyes: A smokescreen (how positively Freudian)? Does any doper here _remember_ the truth commercials which outright call “big tobacco” as liars and otherwise evil people? I remember that smug bastard looking the camera in the eye. I’d punch his lights out if I ever met him in person. These people are deliberately _lying_ about what anyone with two eyes can see in their ads. They are misrepresenting the nature of cigarettes when it clearly isn’t necessary to do so in order to demonstrate the dangers of smoking. They deliberately attacked tobacco company executives in at least two commercials I can remember when they are expressly forbidden to do so under the terms of their funding. In short, these bastards think they can do the wrong thing for the right reason. The ends don’t justify the means, folks, and I expect every ignorace-fighting doper to agree that the truth campaign is at best slightly dishonest, and at worst a lying propaganda machine. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/28 "2002-04-05T18:32:21Z")
Sorry,m I just can’t let this one go. I really have a thorn in my side from these truth people. [continued quotes from the press release cited above] > [@](#): > > And for those who disagree with me, let me just ask this question: Would Lorillard be trying to stop the truth campaign if it WEREN’T helping to reduce youth smoking and tobacco industry revenues?” DUH. I think Lorillard was rather clear and concise on the matter, and in fact mentioned that they tried _several different methods of resolving the issue_ with no success. Like they are just itching to sue truth or something. I notice that ALF leaves every thing Lorillard said _unchallenged_, except for simply denying that they attacked tobacco companies. I’ve heard better arguments from freakin’ **Lolo**. > [@](#): > > I must also point out that it is Lorillard – not Legacy – that has some explaining to do when it comes to the terms of the Master Settlement Agreement. The Agreement prohibits tobacco companies from targeting youth in their advertising. Yet The New England Journal of Medicine reported in its Aug. 16, 2001, issue that “The Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry appears to have had little effect on cigarette advertising in magazines and on the exposure of young people to these advertisements.” The Journal reported that Lorillard had not “substantially changed its level of advertising in youth-oriented magazines during the first two years after the settlement.” Fine. GREAT. Then _you’ve_ got a case agaisnt _them_… in court, or informally, just like they have a case with you. More empty, “ends justifies the means” rhetoric: > [@](#): > > All told, the tobacco industry spends $8.24 billion per year to advertise and market its products. By comparison, Legacy spent about $100 million on the truth campaign in 2001, or about 1.2 percent of the industry total. The industry is Goliath, and we’re David. The battle isn’t even, but we’re determined to fight and win. They’re trying to addict people to smoking to make millions of dollars – we’re trying to prevent people from smoking to save millions of lives. Nice religious imagery. Might explain the inconsistency in using “truth” to describe a smear campaign. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/29 "2002-04-05T18:39:13Z")
I am usually not one for conspiracy theories but I think the “Truth Ads” are a result of one. They are funded by money from the tobacco companies as a result of law suits so the companies see them as a way lessening the backlash against them. They seem to be so over the top with their evidence that no one could take them seriously as reasons to quit smoking and their tone is so smug and obnoxious they actually make the tobacco companies seem sympathetic. It shows anti-smokers as being self-righteous jerks and tobacco company employees as being victims. I am not saying that everyone who works on these ads is in on the conspiracy, but it seems to me that any ten random people off the street could come up with a better campaign if the intention was really to stop people from smoking. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/30 "2002-04-05T18:44:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*Damn those tobacco companies, for they profit off of the personal decision I make to use their product. I decided to start smoking, but Phillp Morris and RJ Reynolds bear full responsibility for that decision. If I’ve ended up with an addiction because of a decision I made, it must be the tobacco companies’ fault. \*\* Come now. NOBODY is saying that the tobacco companies deserve all the blame. Blame is not an “all or nothing” proposition. Should the smokers be blamed for their decision? Certainly, but that doesn’t mean that the tobacco manufacturers bear no culpability themselves. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/31 "2002-04-05T18:46:04Z")
I hate to admit this, since I’m very much against smoking, but those ads are pure propaganda. Are they fair? I guess the question should be: do they have to be fair? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Honey \* > \*\*Smoker chiming in here. > > The “Truth” is that if you smoke and don’t want want to quit these ads won’t convince you to quit. > > Hell, even getting lung cancer most likely won’t make you quit. > > I believe these ads are aimed at the people who know someone that smokes, so that they can then nag the person to death to quit. \*\* I agree that those ads probably aren’t going to make someone quit if they’ve been smoking for years. But I think they’re more aiming at trying to stop kids from starting in the first place. Should they be “fair”? I don’t know the answer to that question. Certainly the tobacco companies haven’t been fair. Is it o.k. to make exaggerated claims about the dangers of smoking in order to keep kids from starting on a destructive and deadly habit? Again, I don’t know. I wonder if it defeats the purpose. Smoking definitely kills people, but if you make too many dubious claims, might it not have the effect of making people not believe ANY of it? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/32 "2002-04-05T19:07:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > \*\*I am usually not one for conspiracy theories but I think the “Truth Ads” are a result of one. They are funded by money from the tobacco companies as a result of law suits so the companies see them as a way lessening the backlash against them. They seem to be so over the top with their evidence that no one could take them seriously as reasons to quit smoking and their tone is so smug and obnoxious they actually make the tobacco companies seem sympathetic. It shows anti-smokers as being self-righteous jerks and tobacco company employees as being victims. I am not saying that everyone who works on these ads is in on the conspiracy, but it seems to me that any ten random people off the street could come up with a better campaign if the intention was really to stop people from smoking. \*\* That makes sense, except that I remember seeing a 60 Minutes piece awhile back on that topic that said the opposite. I’m hoping someone else remembers this, and can correct me if I’m not remembering it right, but I believe they were criticizing the tobacco companies for NOT allowing the Truth Ads to be aired. At the time (a few years ago?), a different, less aggressive type of anti-smoking ad was being run. 60 Minutes claimed that this milder type of ad was ineffective, and accused the tobacco companies of deliberately supporting this ineffective method. They then touted the Truth Ads as being a much better smoking deterrent that the tobacco companies supposedly did not want to have aired. Anybody remember this besides me? Because some of those ads really do seem “over the top”, especially the animated one where the tobacco industry is portrayed as a mean, nasty crocodile. Now I’m kind of questioning whether anyone really could take that kind of “overkill” seriously. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/33 "2002-04-05T19:10:08Z")
\*\* JThunder:\*\* Re-read the last line of the post in which I made those remarks. > [@](#): > > **catsix** > And there is prime ocean front property in Arizona. There is no ocean front property in Arizona, prime or otherwise. It’s a landlocked state. Just as bogus as an offer to sell ocean front real estate in Arizona is the claim that somebody in a suit in a boardroom at a tobacco company is responsible for choices I made. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2002, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/34 "2002-04-05T20:24:54Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*\*\* JThunder:_\* > > Re-read the last line of the post in which I made those remarks… \*\* I think you’re missing the point. You were objecting to the claim that “it must be the tobacco companies’ fault.” I’m merely pointing out that this doesn’t accurately reflect what the critics believe. Most people wouldn’t say that it’s the tobacco manufacturer’s fault; rather, they would say that this blame is to be shared by both the company and their consumers. ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2002, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/35 "2002-04-06T19:59:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*Come now. NOBODY is saying that the tobacco companies deserve all the blame. \*\* I’ll say that. If the tobacco industry had stepped forward the moment they discovered that cigarettes were harmful and addictive I would agree with you. Hell, cigs are so addictive I doubt too many of their customers would have quit even if the package said, “Smoke at your own risk” from the getgo. But, they didn’t, instead those choose to lie to us for as long as they could, resulting in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. They did a pretty good job covering up their nasty secret; it wasn’t until the early 90’s they the cigarette scandal really came to light. Frankly, I wouldn’t care if those Truth ads told everyone one puff will make their genitals shrivel up and fall off, two wrongs don’t make a right, but I’m not opposed to virtually any extreme to rid this planet of those godawful things. P.S. [hijack]What really chaps my hide is that by any credible clinical evaluation marijuana is significantly less harmful than tobacco and possibly alcohol as well, and yet its still retains its stigma as “the devil’s weed” in conservative parts of the country.[/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2002, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/36 "2002-04-06T20:22:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cainxinth \* > Hell, cigs are so addictive I doubt too many of their customers would have quit even if the package said, “Smoke at your own risk” from the getgo. But, they didn’t, instead those choose to lie to us for as long as they could, resulting in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Those two sentences do not work very well together. > [@](#): > > They did a pretty good job covering up their nasty secret; it wasn’t until the early 90’s they the cigarette scandal really came to light. Is that so? I knew all about cigarettes when I started smoking. But then, perhaps I have some secret ability to glean the truth from thin air like a good rationalist philosopher. > [@](#): > > Frankly, I wouldn’t care if those Truth ads told everyone one puff will make their genitals shrivel up and fall off, two wrongs don’t make a right, but I’m not opposed to virtually any extreme to rid this planet of those godawful things. Well, glad you can toss aside all principles of moral integrity and honesty for absolutely no reason whatsoever. How positively disappointing. ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2002, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/37 "2002-04-06T23:17:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*Well, glad you can toss aside all principles of moral integrity and honesty for absolutely no reason whatsoever. \*\* Well it seems you missed it, but i do have a reason: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Cainxinth_ > **I’m not opposed to virtually any extreme to rid this planet of those godawful things (cigs).** The tobacco industry is doing its best, even now to prevent the demand for their product from dissapearing. I don’t normally feel this way, but in this specific case i say fight fire with fire. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2002, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/38 "2002-04-06T23:24:24Z")
Perhaps my reading skills are low, but that looks like a statement of intent, not a reason. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2002, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/39 "2002-04-07T00:15:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > Is that so? I knew all about cigarettes when I started smoking. But then, perhaps I have some secret ability to glean the truth from thin air like a good rationalist philosopher. erislover and catsix, since at least one of you folks is a little younger than I, I will fill you in on a bit of history. While I was in grad school (which wasn’t _that_ long ago…say somewhere in the timeframe of '88-'92), the CEOs of the major cigarette companies testified before Congress and were asked to state their opinion on whether or not nicotine was addictive. Every last one of these scoundrels, presumably under oath, stated that he did not believe that nicotine was addictive. I know because I saw this testimony replayed at the time on “MacNeil Lehrer NewsHour” before my very eyes. Later, internal documents revealed that not only did they know otherwise at the time (and well before, I think) but that they were manipulating nicotine levels for the purpose of keeping smokers addicted. Why these guys aren’t rotting in jail is beyond my ability to comprehend. I do have some mixed feelings about some of the Truth ads because I do think that a few are somewhat deceptive (e.g., they can potentially leave you with the impression that urea is added to cigarettes rather than that it occurs naturally in tobacco and they can potentially leave you with the mistaken impression that there are lots of chemicals that are in cigarettes in sufficient quantities to kill you when in fact there are probably only a few of those chemicals that are actually in sufficient quantities to kill you…and over a period of time). However, these deceptions (and neither are stated explicitly as far as I understand) seem relatively minor compared to what the cigarette company execs did, which was to out-and-out lie, for heaven’s sakes. [I also happen to believe that if you polled kids you would find that very few of them actually misinterpret these ads in this way that I mention…e.g., most of them probably would give the opinion that a lot of those chemicals are probably present in very minute quantities, for example.] ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2002, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894/40 "2002-04-07T00:28:00Z")
There is little doubt in my mind that tobacco companies acted rather unscrupulously. That in no way justifies truth, is my point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-truth-ads-fair/101894.md?page=3)