However, they DO, in fact, force you to use them. Sure, they don’t make you take up smoking to begin with, but they certainly do their best to keep you hooked on their product afterwards- look at how many people have tried, and failed, to quit.
Name one other product which is as addictive as tobacco is, as harmful as tobacco is, and yet is also legal. I sure can’t think of one.
My son’s recently become addicted, despite all my warning against it (my mother and father were both killed by tobacco). He’s eighteen years old, knows he’s addicted, but can’t stop. I’m fucking pissed. Sure, I blame him for starting… but I blame the tobacco companies for marketing a product that they KNOW is harmful and addictive.
Of course when their own research showed for many years that it was harmful and addictive ,they lied. They were dishonest in marketing and tried to find ways to increase the addiction.I have zero sympathy for the companies.
I also have no sympathy for any one who started smoking since 1975 or so. If they didnt know better they were hiding under a rock.
I notice you conveniently let the government off the hook. You know… the government that has known for the better part of a century that cigarettes are addictive and dangerous, yet supports the farmers with subsidies, approves and taxes the shit out of the product. Not only is your son addicted to a dangerous drug, the government will take piles of his money for the entire time he’s addicted.
The government usually doesn’t have a problem taking a dangerous product and taking it off the market. Asbestos for example. There’s a product that actually did something GOOD (fireproof insulation) and it’s off the market. Lead paint, gone. Lawn darts, gone. There’s a laundry list a mile long of products made illegal because they’re dangerous, but noooooo, not tobacco, it’s politically dangerous to oppose tobacco. A person might lose his job if he suggested making tobacco illegal, can’t have that.
But really, it’s not the government’s fault, it’s the companies that they incorporate, take taxes from, support with subsidies and allow to sell the product completely unhindered.
As an aside, did anybody actually believe tobacco executives when they said the product wasn’t addictive or dangerous? Despite a century of experience watching people unable to quit and dying from cancer like flies… right.
The jury is still out on this whole “addiction” thing. Much more research is needed, years and years. For instance, in one study (generously funded by the American Tobacco Enlightenment Fund) of 20 “addicted” white rats, it was found that fully 7 of them would not gnaw through their genitals to get a “hit”. Clearly, this casts some doubt on the whole concept of “addiction”. Much more study is needed. Years.
No, actually, it is the strongest point made in this thread to date. Poeple like you are pointing the finger of responsibility at the individual who buys the cigarette, but are supremely indifferent to the responsibility of the one who sells it. Sorry, not gonna fly. If the individual gets cancer I am sorry for them but they brought it on themselves. If the corporation gets shredded by legal velociraptors, I’m not all that sorry for them, since they harmed others for money, and they did bring it on themselves.
So, if the individual gets cancer, they brought it on themselves, but at the same time BT should pay through the nose because the individual got cancer, which, you just said, was the individual’s fault, but somehow this makes BT responsible for something that was the choice of the individual… And then you mention hypocrisy. The spirals and loops of your “logic” are baffling to say the least.
So by what logic is BT not responsible for their actions? THEY sold the cancer sticks! THEY chose to! Damn, it’s like you’d approve of jailing drug users but not drug dealers. WTF is it with you guys?
Look how many people have tried and succeed. You just need to want to quit more than you want to smoke. That might be harder for some than for others, but I have never seen any evidence that people can’t quit if they in fact want to.
Then sue the government for not making it illegal.
I’m sorry for you and your son. But he can stop if he wants to. Most kids his age simply don’t recognize the risk they are taking.
According to your math, this equation works out to the warning labels’ being an absolute Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. You’re suggesting that merely putting warning labels on a (heavily marketed to kids and addictive) product should offer absolute immunity to its pushers. No due process, no further opportunities to examine: warning label = sucks-to-be-you, smoker.
Seems to me the OP and some others are misstating the issue. From tomorrow’s Stars & Stripes (page 15):
So, no, it’s not that people didn’t know that cigarettes are harmful. The issue is that the tobacco industry was touting that the light cigarettes are less harmful than the regular cigarettes even though the industry knew at the time that’s not true.
Not perzackly. They sold the notion that “light” cigarettes have less harmful “tars”. They invited the listener to believe that they are less harmful than normal ciggys, but don’t actually say so, it depends on what the definition of “kill yer ass” is. As I recall, all that happens is that the “light” cigarette smoker just smokes harder to keep the monkey from screaming.
Corporations, like other good citizens, have a duty to the public welfare. Its simply that they feel that obligation is best served in the form of campaign contributions to that party which most supports a vigorous business environment, free of cumbersome regulations. And moralities. Scruples. That sort of thing.
So, what you’re saying is that they preyed on the credulousness of people, the ability of people to so delude themselves that they would believe that inhaling something called “tar” was better for you than something else which was, remarkably enough, called “tar”. Uh huh. I’ve heard the saying that you can never go wrong counting on the gullibility of the public, but this is too much. “Smoking is bad” is old news. Very, very old news. It originated well before there was ever any such thing as a “light” cigarette.
I noticed you avoided my comments above. I will reproduce them in their entirety for you once more:
Would you care to comment, or do you wish to continue to dishonestly railroad corporations based on your (flawed, IMO) sense of morality and ethics?
I have been alive for 30 years, and in that time I never once saw an advertisement that stated that “light” cigarettes were better or safer for you to smoke. I’m sure that you can produce one for me to peruse since they are/were so common.
That is indeed the case. If I tell you not to jump off a building and I do so every day of your life AND I do so immediately prior to your jumping, I have no culpability for your stupid decisions. If we’re at a bar and I ask you to give me your keys every five minutes AND I tell you that you’re going to die if you drive but you choose to do so anyway, I have no culpability for your stupid decisions. See how that works?
Very much so in your America. Enjoy those beer and fast-food commercials, because God knows that tobacco companies are the only ones that advertise addictive products to kids. That is, if you think that kids were suckered by occasional glimpses of Joe Camel that barely made a blip on the radar compared to Ronald McDonald and the Budweiser Clydesdales.
I smoke light cigs, and a few years ago (at least 3, IIRC), my butts (Phillip Morris) occasionally contained a little leaflet that explained why light cigarettes were no safer than “full flavor.” It was printed by the thoughtful folks at PM.
Anyone know what that was all about? Was there a lawsuit that brought that on? Did all BT companies have to include it?
I have a big problem with these lawsuits: first, the state governemnets are eagerly spending the money collected from people who will die and be seriously injured, due to their continuing use of tobacco. doesn’t this make the lawyers, the states, the taxauthorities complicit in murder?
Second: the policy of allowing this product to be sold (albeit heavily taxed) makes no economic sense to me: as Medicare and private health insurance will have to cover the treatemnt of seriously ill smokers.
Third: the unjust enrichment of lawyers: why should a third-part profit from the illness and death of other people? It is wrong and immoral to derive income from the earnings of a prostitute-so why should law firms get billions form cigarette taxes?
I have a better solution; announce a date after which the sale and use of tobacco is illegal. after that, state that all tobacco-related illnesses will not be treated/paid for under medicare.
I look forward to seeing your enthusiastic support of laws against unlicensed unprotected sex, marijuana smoking (even if not as dangerous as ciggies, certainly not healthy!), and bungee jumping.