“Died from smoking related diseases” does not mean “Died from smoking”. There is no argument here.
What the stripped down numbers are, I have no idea. But this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Whether smoking kills 0% or 100% of smokers does not matter; it is their personal choice. They aren’t naughty children who need to be slapped.
And you people attacking the “ignorant smokers” are missing an even more important point: smokers aren’t stupid.
I really don’t know how you can quite seriously suggest that smokers do not know the risks.
Irrelevant. Because some people use a product irresponsibly doesn’t make me a bad person.
Some non-drivers get killed by cars. Go figure.
You have a cite for this, of course? That is to say, you can show that the big corporations are targetting children - not just that a lot of smokers take up smoking when they are children, which is a different matter entirely.
With all due respect, I think you may be the one missing the important point. Yep, the tobacco companies lied. Yep, the CEO’s lied under oath. They got caught and were made to answer for it.
That’s why there was a lawsuit in 1998. A settlement agreement was reached. “Big Tobacco” has been following the terms of that settlement agreement (including the establishment of anti-tobacco campaigns) and are paying the price for their past misconduct.
The fact that the tobacco companies lied before 1998 does not give their opponents the right to violate the terms of the settlement (which is what the “Truth” campaign seems to be doing in their relationship with Lorilard Tobacco), and it sure as Hell does not give tobacco opponents the right to doctor the facts now.
As you correctly noted, people and policy makers need correct information. But they need it from both sides.
I haven’t smoked for a year, but last time I :eek: cigarettes still cost money…your argument is total straw man. :rolleyes:
Well, for one thing, I don’t think policymakers are being denied information now … The tobacco companies had the capability to keep information about what they were doing covered up. The claims in Truth ads are easy for a policymaker to check out.
As for the public, I have said that I have mixed feelings about the Truth ads. But, having seen very few of them myself and having only heard sort of vague statements about what is false and misleading about them and having only heard that they violate this agreement from the tobacco companies themselves, I just can’t say I am yet convinced there is much fire here beyond the smoke. There may be, or it may be some nice PR spin from you-know-who. At any rate, if the agreement has been violated, the tobacco companies should be able to sue and win in court…God knows they have the lawyers to do so.
As for sirjamesp, well I am glad you are personally are willing to take all the blame for your decision to smoke. I am all in favor of people taking responsibility for their actions. I just think that people (and corporate entities) don’t get absolved of responsibility just because they are pulling down 7 of 8 figure salaries and have high-priced lawyers working for them. In my book, you just can’t go before Congress [in a hearing, by the way, that I seem to recall may have been studying whether cigarettes should be regulated as a drug] and bald-faced lie under oath about an issue potentially affecting the lives of thousands of people and get away scott-free. It’s not just that they lied about the science…You can always find some minority scientific view to support your point (witness global warming deniers)…but they lied about what they even believed and knew, claiming one thing while secretly taking actions that showed they damn well knew otherwise!
cainxinth
I hope you realize that all your cites were government sites. Mostly CDC…hardly an independent source.
Jshore
You really need to get a life outside SDMB.
So teen smoking is eradicated, No teens smoke any more. If that were the case why do we need The ALF?
Somehow, I really don’t believe lies, damned lies or statistics put out by the government. 
It seems to me that your objection is the real strawman. Of course cigarettes cost money. How does this refute my statement that the tobacco companies are encouraging their consumption?
These companies encourage the consumption of tobacco by advertising its use and denying the extent of its negative effects. The fact that cigarettes still cost money is irrelevant, and (to use your words) a “total straw man.”
Ok JT have it your way; when I quoted you, the quote you quoted 
didn’t get included…here it is in it’s entirety:
Perhaps I made a wrong assumption, which I probably did, but it sounded as if Demosthenesian is talking about someone supplying (note: nothing is said about paying or cost or money).
I knew cigarettes were bad for me from the first grade or so (c.1981) from the pamphlets and displays from the American Lung Association and like organizations and health class. I didn’t need someone leaving me with the false assumption that there was dog urine and 10mg of cyanide in a pack of Camels to let me know that cigarettes were bad for your health.
Yes, I think you did make a hasty assumption. “Supplying” does not necessarily mean “supplying for free.” In fact, economists routinely use thw rod in ways that implicitly assume that payment will be exacted (e.g. “supply and demand”).
[nitpick]
I assumed, correctly I hope, that ‘thw rod’ instead of meaning throw rod to mean the word. 
I doubt if Demosthenesian is using this example in the economist’s sense. In fact the picture I get is a guy handing the alcoholic another bottle as soon as he finishes the current one. But anyway, sorry.
[/nitpick]
Yeah, cainxinth, Good God what were you thinking relying on statistics from the Federal Government’s National Center for Health Statistics! For the real facts, one only has to go to the American Tobacco Institute! People like you, cainxinth, probably also believe reports by biased nuts like the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change and the National Academy of Sciences when it comes to climate change!
I’ll take it under advisement, Philovance. What do you suggest I do? puddleglum (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=68548) seems to recommend that I should play more Ultimate Frisbee…But, more than 3~4 days a week gets a bit excessive, don’t you think?
OKOKOKOK. I take it all back.
I apologize to jshore and cainxinth…
[sub]I guess smileys (esp :D) don’t work anymore[/sub]
Well, it’s hard not to accept an apology made in huge red letters! [I didn’t even know we could do such dramatic things with the fonts.]
The problem I have with interpretting smileys, by the way, is that they can mean lots of things from “I’m just kidding” to something very different.