Sure, tobacco isn’t good for anybody. But this anti-tobacco group that calls itself ‘truth’ has ostensibly spent quite a bit of money creating and running all these ads, which obviously aren’t free. I assume they’re a non-profit… are the ads meant to drum up more donations to their organization? Where does the funding come from, and what is the financial incentive for them to spend money on this?
According to the Wikipedia article, the funding comes from proceeds of lawsuits against tobacco companies.
re: “financial incentive” - Maybe there isn’t any. Maybe they are sincere and altruistic?
They do it for the money, paying themselves fat salaries. There are billions of dollars available through the tobacco settlement – the only catch is that it must be used to crusade against tobacco; integrity and ethics are not really required, just the ability to write a grant request and produce some sort of media product.
This being General Questions, I assume you can show us cites that back up these claims?
Here’s a pretty good overview:Ecigarette Politics • OZ Vapour
Here’s a website with links to many more pages on the subject: Tobacco Control Tactics
Your first cite’s motto: Where health meets politics: examining the pressure to restrict vaping and THR in order to protect the smoking economy.
Your second link is also from an extremely pro-smoking site.
That’s a biased and offensive propaganda piece that doesn’t really support your contention. This is a sample of the unsupported venom in that piece:
Thanks for the sterling examples of fake news.
Do you have any actual citations?
I said they do it for the money and lack ethics. I suggest your quote from the page certainly supports my contention. Reading several thousand of pages of research over the past few years has convinced me that this page presents a very accurate overview of the current state of the tobacco control industry.
That the money comes from tobacco companies was cited in the first reply. Does the fact that the people making these commercials aren’t volunteers really need a cite? They pay themselves with tobacco company money to create propaganda against smoking.
Agree with their goals or don’t, but you can’t question that it is actually happening.
Reading “several thousand pages of research” doesn’t really count for much if these are the sources of the so-called “research”.
Is it so shocking that the people running this organization receive salaries? Are you next going to tell me that those running other non-profit organizations also are paid? Shouldn’t they be paid for doing a job?
That the people working for the organizations get paid isn’t really in question nor is it interesting. That they lack ethics is unsupported by your links.
I did not say this was the research I read; I said the first link contains a pretty good overview of what my reading of thousands of pages of actual dense scientific research papers found, and that the second link leads to further reading on the subject. I do not expect others to do the amount of reading on the subject I did and I cannot possibly list all I have learned in a forum post.
Here’s one short quote from a page in my second link which I find very appropriate:
Dr. Siegel is a Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health. He has 25 years of experience in the field of tobacco control. He previously spent two years working at the Office on Smoking and Health at CDC, where he conducted research on secondhand smoke and cigarette advertising. He has published nearly 70 papers related to tobacco. He testified in the landmark Engle lawsuit against the tobacco companies, which resulted in an unprecedented $145 billion verdict against the industry. He teaches social and behavioral sciences, mass communication and public health, and public health advocacy in the Masters of Public Health program.
Propaganda = lies. Lying isn’t ethical. QED.
Propaganda doesn’t automatically = lies, and presenting your case before the public isn’t always “propaganda”.
So anti-tobacco crusaders are stone cold killers? How does that work?
My theory–they’re against vaping, which is safer than cigarettes, which means for every guy who’s smoking instead of vaping they’re directly responsible for murdering that guy with cancer? Is that the angle?
How does this work exactly?
“Switch to vaping because it’s safer than smoking” in the same breath as “You should support the smoking industry against attacks from outsiders!”
For example:
Tobacco endgame strategies: challenges in ethics and law
It’s more complex than “Tobacco is bad, m’kay”