" …The newest promotion to draw the surgeon general’s ire: R.J. Reynolds matchbooks that say, “Until I find a real man, I’ll take a real smoke.”
I think the ad copy speaks for itself…pretty damn insulting on about a dozen different levels.
Maybe the ad execs might get a “real case of lung cancer” while waiting for “real women” to buy “real smokes” 'cause they can’t find “real men”.
I kinda find the tobacco companies refreshing—it’s not often you encounter real, hissable evil, with no shades of gray.
I may disagree with, say, PETA or anti-abortion activists or religious fundies. But I can’t deny that they THINK they are right and doing the good and honorable thing. But tobacco companies? They kill people for money. Simple as that. You have to stand back, take your hat off and really admire that kind of old-fashioned Snidley Whiplash kind of villainy.
Lordy, I know I am gonna get a lot of shit for this one…
Eve sezs:
Ok, given that statement I can only assume that you feel the same way about all the companies that make guns, bullets, cars, trains, planes, plastic grocery bags (choking hazard), etc… I think you get the idea. But I bet you don’t feel the same way above those companies do you? Well if you apply the same rational you use on the tabacco companies then you should.
The fact is that none of the companies that make the things I listed above, including cig makers, kill people. It is the product itself that kills a person. Millions of people have been killed by cars but I don’t see people suing Ford or Honda. Millions of people have been killed by bullets but I don’t see anyway trying to get Winchester. And smoking 1 or even 100 packs of cigs in your life will not kill you. It is the act of over consuming the product that leads to lung cancer and such. Just like everything else in the whole damn world, moderation is the key. And yes, I know that of the stuff I listed above, cigs are the only addictive one out there, BUT THIS IS A WELL KNOWN FACT, therefore caveat emptor. For the people who grew up before it was found out cigs are addictive, I am sorry. They did not know and had no way of knowing that the product was addictive. But that will only get you so far. I do not know this for sure, or possibly even close, but I believe it was in the 60’s or 70’s that the word started going around that cigs are BAD. So any single fucking person that lights up a cig in this country in this day and age KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING and it is not the fault of the tabacco company that they choose to ignore the warnings. The damn warnings are even stuck on the side of a pack of cigs. How hard is it to understand???
-N
ps. I am not trying to attack you personally Eve, I am just tired of hearing people say things like that about ANY company. People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. As long as there is demand there will be a supply, simple economics.
really? You’re not suggesting that gun manufacturers have not been sued (rightly or wrongly) lately?
Anyway…the thread seems to be getting a bit offtrack…there have been plenty of other threads discussing the relative merits of smoking rights or smoking regulations…I wanted to spit in RJ Reynolds direction for their insulting ad campaign.
But cars aren’t designed to degrade your health. It’s possible to use one and not suffer any health affects. You can kill yourself or someone else with most products. But tobacco will cause your health to degrade even when used properly.
I’m just going to peek out from behind Blackclaw’s shoulder and agree that “cars, trains, planes, and plastic grocery bags” have other uses BESIDES killing people. Even guns and bullets can be used for self-defense, target practice or killing animals for food.
Cigarettes have one and only one result: they addict you, make you sick, and sometimes kill you. So yes, I’d say the folks at RJ Reynolds and their ilk are the “very pineapple of evil,” as Mrs. Malaprop would say.
The tobacco companies make a product that not only injures the people who use it, but it also injures people who are around people who use it, and therefore have no choice in the dangerous consumption of said product (except to leave the area, and that’s not always an option). In my opinion, that puts their product into a completely different category.
And as for the OP, I am vehemently opposed to anything that promotes something as dangerous as smoking cigarettes. In the grand scheme of things, this ad is insulting, and it is wrong; my belief system allows me to believe that the people responsible for it will pay for their decisions someday.
I’ve had a fanciful idea for a brand of cigarettes for a while now myself. I’d name it “Coffin Nails.” The package would be black with a white skull and crossbones on the front. The back of the pack would advise the purchaser, in addition to the required warnings on the package, that tobacco is habit forming, contains carcinogens, and long term use can not only have deliterious health effects but also kill the user.
No filters on these suckers, either.
You’re about ten years too late, 2nd Law—there used to be a brand called “Death Cigarettes,” complete with that skull & crossbones on the package. Dunno whatever became of them . . . Maybe they just tasted lousy.
Since I do have many (well, OK, two or three) good friends who smoke, let me add that I do not nag them or make faces or even HINT that they should quit. They’re all grownups, they’re all polite enough not to blow smoke in my kisser, and if they wanna shorten their lives, that’s entirely their choice.
Well, shoot. Another brilliant idea that turns out to not be original.
I guess I’d best stick to my occasional cigar.
Each of my cigars probably has as much tobacco as a pack of cigarettes. I, like former Pres. Clinton, however, do not inhale.
On the other hand, I just smoke my cigars, as opposed to what Clinton did with his cigars.
If someone wants to smoke, fine. I couldn’t care less as long as it’s not hurting anyone else. Who gives a shit what RJ Reynolds is saying or what their newest ad campaign is. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you. I don’t see why we’re so concerned about sending the message that smoking is bad for you. Let people smoke, and let them die. That’s their choice and no one else’s. The MSNBC article states, “We need to target our messages with information that will resonate with teenage-girls.” Why? Why do we even care? If some stupid, fucking teenage chick doesn’t already know that smoking is bad for her, then what are you going to do? Send her a rotten lung in the mail with a letter stating, “This is your lung in 20 years.” Or send her the cutout of someone’s throat hole?
I seem to recall a study showing that there were no negative health effects for people who smoked 5 or less cigarettes a day. When I DID smoke, that’s about how much I smoked, so cigarettes are not necessarily bad for you.
In the UK, the warnings on cigarette packets (and magazine ads and billboards etc.) are much more straightforward than the Surgeon General’s nambypamby “Smoking might possibly make you feel a tad bit unwell.”
No, we get things like
“SMOKING CAUSES CANCER”
“TOBACCO CAUSES FATAL DISEASES”
“SMOKING CAN CAUSE LOW BIRTH WEIGHT”
“CIGARETTES CAUSE SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION”
jr8, no they’re NOT mad… just addicted. It is not easy to quit smoking… I’ve tried several times (and plan to continue trying until I die! From smoking or other causes… perhaps one day I will be sucessful.). I plan to try again soon, and the whole time I am having withdrawl symptoms, I will be cursing the tobacco companies to several sorts of hell!
Do I blame them for getting me addicted? No, that was my own stupidity.
Will I sue them for my own stupidity? No… as I said, it was my own stupidity!
Will I blame them for intentionally manipulating the tobacco plants to make their products MORE addictive (and thus much harder to quit using)? Yes, and they should burn in hell for it! They have been trying to make it easier to become addicted to their products, and harder to quit using them (that would hurt the profit margin, of course).
Let’s not forget that they have been intentionally trying to get more and more people addicted all over the world with PR campaigns and advertising campaigns designed to appeal to teenagers (an easy target for anything “cool”); they know that once a teen has purchased his first pack of cigarettes, they have a customer for LIFE (oxymoronically, a much shortened life)…
I agree that the tobacco companies belong in their own category, and if anyone can explain to me why I shouldn’t view them as evil of the purest sort, I’d love to hear it!
Eve, I think you are thinking of ‘Black Death’ cigarettes. They come in a black box with a grinning skull wearing a top hat on it. They aren’t widely marketed, but are available (usually in specialty shops and such). I usually grab a pack once a week, myself. Like their logo says, “I like 'em, and I’m gonna smoke 'em”. I think there is a Black Death brand of vodka too - same logo, so I assume it is from the same company, but I haven’t actually seen it myself…
As to the OP, it doesn’t make much sense to me. Is it refering to the Monica Lewinski cigar thing? I don’t think a cigarette would be much good for that in replacing a “real man”…
Actually it’s not true that beig a tobacco “chipper” poses no health threats…what studies have found is that chippers don’t necessarily reach an “addiction” level
“Most American smokers are believed to be addicted according to these criteria (8). However, approximately 10 percent of current smokers (a group sometimes called tobacco “chippers”) regularly smoke five or fewer cigarettes per day and appear not to be addicted (9). Most do not have withdrawal symptoms when they stop. Typically, such people smoke in specific situations, can skip smoking for one or more days, and can quit smoking without great personal distres”
However…there are still health threats…so I disagree with the idea that smoking at that level poses no health risk.
